5th Circuit grants 600,000 Texans the Right to Vote

[chijohnaok]

That form goes to an agency that has electronic access to birth records. The reason they exist is so that you can register to vote without having to pay a fee to get a certified copy of your birth certificate, since it is available to them anyway.

Your "concern" about fraud is, as usual, made up out of thin air. What you really want is for people who consider having to pay twenty-five bucks and spending a day getting a copy of their birth certificate more hassle than it is worth to be restricted from voting. In short, you prefer an unconstitutional poll tax in hopes that it will favor candidates you prefer.

What "agency" is that?

Because according to the form that I linked, each mail in voter registration is sent to the state office that handles voter registrations (Office of the Secretary of State P.O. Box 5616 Montgomery, AL 36103‑5616, Division of Elections State of Alaska PO Box 110017 Juneau, AK 99811‑0017, etc.). They are not sent to some sort of central agency for processing.

Not all states use the same methods/databases/level of due diligence to validate voter registrations.
More is available regarding this at:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-list-accuracy.aspx

And not every registered voter has a birth record that originated in the United States. The birth record of anyone who is born outside the US and/or is a naturalized citizen would have originated somewhere outside the US. I doubt that any state agency has electronic access to birth records of every country on the planet and doubt that the US federal government would have such access either. I was born in Chicago, Illinois but currently live in Florida. When I needed a copy of my birth certificate, I had to contact the appropriate office in Cook County, IL which maintains an electronic record of my birth certificate. My parents were born in Romania, but live in Illinois. If they need a copy of their birth certificate (electronic or otherwise), they would need to contact the Romanian government.

And I disagree with your assessment that my concern is "made up out of thin air".

A study ( Do Non-Citizens Vote in U.S. Elections? ) done at Old Dominion University came to the following conclusion:

We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress

Their study reviewed data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and looked over two election cycles. The sample sizes were large (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010).

The study indicated that based upon the poll results,

"In 2008, 67 noncitizens (19.8%) either claimed they were registered, had their registration status verified, or
both". "In 2010 76 (15.6%) of non-citizens indicated that they were registered to vote in either the pre-election or post-election survey waves".

(pg 8 of the linked document).

In 2008, the proportion of non-citizens who were in fact registered to vote was somewhere between 19.8% (all who reported or had verified registration, or both) and 3.3% (11 non-citizen respondents were almost certainly registered to vote because they both stated that they were registered and had their registration status verified). Even the low-end estimate suggests a fairly substantial population of registered-to-vote non-citizens nationwide. Out of roughly 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the United States, this would represent a population of roughly 620,000 registered non-citizens"

. (pg 9 of the document).

The document also goes on to say that:

"In 2008, thirty eight (11.3%) reported that they voted, had their vote verified, or both. As with registration, claims of voting and validated voting did not intersect very often, in part because the voting question was not asked for all non-citizens who had verified voting, and voter file matches were not available for all non-citizens who claimed that they voted. Twenty seven indicated that “I definitely voted in the November General Election” and 16 had validated general election votes. Only five (1.5%) both claimed that they definitely voted and had a validated vote. In 2010 thirteen non-citizens (3.5% of respondents to the post-election survey) indicated that they voted. All 2008 and 2010 reported votes by non-citizens were in violation of
state election law as no votes were cast by non-citizen respondents from the Maryland localities which allow non-citizen voting.

(pg 11 & 12)

Also from the document:

How many non-citizen votes were likely cast in 2008? Taking the most conservative
estimate – those who both said they voted and cast a verified vote – yields a confidence interval
based on sampling error between 0.2% and 2.8% for the portion of non-citizens participating in
elections. Taking the least conservative measure – at least one indicator showed that the
respondent voted – yields an estimate that between 7.9% and 14.7% percent of non-citizens
voted in 2008. Since the adult non-citizen population of the United States was roughly 19.4
million (CPS 2011), the number of non-citizen voters (including both uncertainty based on
normally distributed sampling error, and the various combinations of verified and reported
voting) could range from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the
maximum.

(pg 12).

The study also went on to examine the ideological or political leanings of non-citizen voters.

Non-citizens who reported voting were asked their candidate
preferences, and these preferences skewed toward Democrats. In 2008 66.7 percent reported
voting for the Democratic House candidate, while only 20.8 percent reported voting for the
Republican candidate. 81.8 percent reported voting for Barack Obama compared to 17.5 percent
for John McCain. The difference of proportions is statistically significant using both Chi-Square and z tests (p<.005) and substantively large for both the House and Presidential vote cases.
Similarly in 2010, 53.8 percent of non-citizens reported voting for the Democratic House
candidate while 30.7 percent indicated that they voted for the Republican.

(pg 13 & 14).

The study also reported this:

We find that there is reason to believe non-citizen voting changed one state’s Electoral College
votes in 2008, delivering North Carolina to Obama, and that non-citizen votes have also led to
Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race that delivered
for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate

and

The most important race identified in Table 4 is undoubtedly the Minnesota 2008 Senate
contest. This race, ultimately decided by 312 votes for Democrat Al Franken, was of critical
national importance. It gave Democrats the filibuster-proof super-majority needed to pass major
legislative initiatives during President Obama’s first year in office. The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, for instance, would have had a much more difficult path to passage were it
not for Franken’s pivotal vote. The MN 2008 Senate race is also the race where the smallest
portion of non-citizen votes would have tipped the balance – participation by more than 0.65% of
non-citizens in MN is sufficient to account for the entirety of Franken’s margin. Our best guess
is that nearly ten times as many voted.

(pg 17)


You can read the study in its entirety at: http://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf

Also, as information, this study was referenced in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ld-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

California law, in accordance with federal regulation, requires all such records to be available electronically to a central state agency, not just kept in some dusty county records office.

Shove the rest of your wall of text in the handiest orifice, since it is all blather built on your false opening statement...as usual..

Moderator Action: Please keep it civil
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Dachs]

You can read the study in its entirety at: http://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf

Also, as information, this study was referenced in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ld-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/

Your WaPo article was written by the authors of the paper, so that doesn't tell us much.

In another WaPo article shortly afterward, another academic, Michael Tesler, criticized the methodology of the Richman paper by pointing out flaws in the CCES dataset and noted that the authors only managed to validate the votes of five non-citizens. That is five more non-citizens than should be voting, but it is not a statistically significant number even given the scope of their study and it is not enough to swing North Carolina, let alone the entire election.

Combine that with the repeated instances of federal voter fraud investigation turning up no significant amount of voter fraud and I think that it's fairly easy to demonstrate that that concern is unjustified.

 

[chijohnaok]

Growing up in Chicago the fear of fraud is institutionalized. But I'm always torn because of the exclusionary aspect when others claim they are attempting to fight it.

I'd favor a free US id. I'd even push it farther and say free passports with free photos. If it isn't too onerous to get one, I think that would satisfy most of the exclusionary aspects.

I was also born and grew up in Chicago so my frame of reference regarding voter/election fraud in Chicago is probably similar to yours.

Voter fraud in Chicago was more than just a "legend":
Election fraud Chicago style: Illinois&#8217; decades-old notoriety for election corruption is legendary


It happened during the Richard J. Daley era.
It continued after he passed away (In 1982 the US Attorney in Chicago estimated that the party machine manufactured at least 100,000 extra votes in an attempt to defeat Republican gubernatorial candidate James Thompson. Sixty-three people were convicted of election fraud).

And the shenanigans in Chicago continue to happen still in 2016:
Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your WaPo article was written by the authors of the paper, so that doesn't tell us much.

In another WaPo article shortly afterward, another academic, Michael Tesler, criticized the methodology of the Richman paper by pointing out flaws in the CCES dataset and noted that the authors only managed to validate the votes of five non-citizens. That is five more non-citizens than should be voting, but it is not a statistically significant number even given the scope of their study and it is not enough to swing North Carolina, let alone the entire election.

Combine that with the repeated instances of federal voter fraud investigation turning up no significant amount of voter fraud and I think that it's fairly easy to demonstrate that that concern is unjustified.

I knew it was not justified just based on the repeatedly demonstrated lack of credibility of the poster, but thanks for the effort.

 

[Lexicus]

Voter fraud in Chicago was more than just a "legend":

You're aware that that link is about electoral fraud which is different from voter fraud right?
Maybe you can explain how voter ID laws can prevent fraud committed by the people who are administering the election because I just don't get it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're aware that that link is about electoral fraud which is different from voter fraud right?
Maybe you can explain how voter ID laws can prevent fraud committed by the people who are administering the election because I just don't get it.

There's nothing to get. It's the usual "I have links so I have credibility" nonsense. Nine times out of ten he is counting on no one following his links since they actually disprove his point. Apparently his usual haunts are filled with stupid people.

 

[Commodore]

There's nothing to get. It's the usual "I have links so I have credibility" nonsense. Nine times out of ten he is counting on no one following his links since they actually disprove his point. Apparently his usual haunts are filled with stupid people.

What is your deal lately? You seriously just jump immediately to personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. This is a recent development too, like within the past month or two. You need to sort out whatever has you so angry and calm down. You used to be one of the more pleasant people to talk to on here, even if someone disagreed with you. Lately though, you have just been a colossal jerk to anyone that doesn't agree with you 100%.

I mean, you notice how Lexicus was able to express disagreement with that post without directly attacking the person who posted it? It's really not that hard.

 

[Zkribbler]

Now, a little more than a week later, the 4th Circuit strikes down North Carolina's voter registration laws

North Carolina Voter ID Law Targeted African-Americans, Appeals Court Rules
The court struck down the law, saying it was enacted “with discriminatory intent.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a North Carolina law that required voters to show photo identification when casting their ballots in the November election, ruling that it discriminated against African-American residents.

The ruling is likely to be seen as a boost for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in a state that is politically important as it does not lean heavily toward either Democrats or Republicans. Clinton is heavily favored among black Americans over Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The court also struck down other restrictions that scaled back early voting, prevented residents from registering and voting on the same day, and eliminated the ability for voters to vote outside their assigned precinct.

Critics argue that photo ID laws enacted by North Carolina and several other states are designed to drive down turnout by minorities and poor people who are less likely to possess drivers’ licenses or other forms of state-issued identification.

In its ruling, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit said the state legislature targeted African-Americans “with almost surgical precision.”

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” the court wrote.

 

[Commodore]

Now, a little more than a week later, the 4th Circuit strikes down North Carolina's voter registration laws

Not surprising. I agree with the general concept behind voter registration laws, but when the laws in place are so obviously discriminatory then they have to be struck down.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not surprising. I agree with the general concept behind voter registration laws, but when the laws in place are so obviously discriminatory then they have to be struck down.

I thought the general concept was to be discriminatory. In some way, shape, or form aren't they all just "keep as many of the opposition's supporters as possible from voting"? I mean, the premise of "let's take action to prevent something that doesn't seem to be happening anyway" seems pretty weak.

 

[Commodore]

I thought the general concept was to be discriminatory. In some way, shape, or form aren't they all just "keep as many of the opposition's supporters as possible from voting"? I mean, the premise of "let's take action to prevent something that doesn't seem to be happening anyway" seems pretty weak.

Nah, perfect world theory behind it is that it is supposed to prevent voter fraud. A noble goal, but that's not how these states are using these laws since we obviously do not live in a perfect world. Since they can't be trusted to use these laws for what they were intended for, then the laws have to be taken off the books.

 

[JollyRoger]

The stated intention of these laws is to prevent voter fraud. The actual intention is to suppress legitimate votes.

 

[Commodore]

The stated intention of these laws is to prevent voter fraud. The actual intention is to suppress legitimate votes.

Which is why the courts are rightfully striking them down.

 

[Zkribbler]

And a few hours later, Kansas...

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) &#8212; Kansas must count potentially thousands of votes in state and local races from people who've registered without providing citizenship documents, a county judged ruled on Friday.

The order from Shawnee County District Judge Larry Hendricks came only four days before Tuesday's primary election. Hendricks blocked an administrative rule from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

Hendricks' order will remain in effect at least through Sept. 21, when he plans to have another hearing to consider whether to block the rule through the November election. He said from the bench that he feels strongly about protecting people's right to vote.

"There is no right that is more precious in a free country," Hendricks said as he prepared to announce his decision in open court.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of three prospective voters earlier this month, a week after a state board allowed Kobach to impose the rule temporarily &#8212; through the November election &#8212; without a public hearing. It would have applied to people who register to vote at state motor vehicle offices without providing proof of their U.S. citizenship as required by a 2013 state law.

The affected Kansas voters still will receive ballots to be reviewed later, as planned. The rule from Kobach directed local election officials to count only their votes for federal offices, not state and local ones, but Hendricks' ruling requires all their votes to be counted.

Ahead of the primary, about 17,600 people registered at motor vehicle offices without providing citizenship papers. About 50,000 people could be affected in November.

Kobach's action was a response to a federal judge's ruling in May in another lawsuit that people who register at motor vehicle offices are entitled to vote in federal races even if they've not met the proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Federal law requires states to allow people to register at motor vehicle offices when they're obtaining or renewing driver's licenses. The federal judge ruled that people document their citizenship adequately for voting in federal races by signing a statement on the registration form, facing criminal penalties if it's not true.

Kobach, a conservative Republican, has championed the proof-of-citizenship requirement as an anti-fraud measure that keeps non-citizens from voting, including immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. He also argued that in complying with the federal judge's order, he's still required to enforce the proof-of-citizenship law as much as possible.

Kobach said he would not appeal Hendricks' decision Friday because it's not practical with the primary election so close. He said the ruling "essentially knocks a huge loophole" in the proof-of-citizenship law.

"It's really unfortunate because it is a certainty that aliens will be allowed to vote in this primary election as a result of this order," Kobach said.

Alabama, Arizona and Georgia have similar proof-of-citizenship but Kansas has gone the furthest to enforce its law. Kansas also has a requirement that voters show photo ID at the polls.

The Kansas ruling came the same day a federal appeals court blocked a North Carolina voter ID law, and earlier this month, another federal appeals court said Texas's strict voter ID law is discriminatory. In Wisconsin, a federal judge struck down GOP-authored election laws Friday.

The ACLU and other critics of proof-of-citizenship requirements say they suppress voter turnout &#8212; particularly among young and minority voters &#8212; far more than they combat fraud.

ACLU attorney Sophia Lakin, who argued the case in Kansas, noted that Kobach has touted photo ID and proof of citizenship laws around the nation. His visibility makes the Kansas ruling nationally significant.

"It sets a very important tone going forward," she said.

The ACLU had argued that setting up a two-tiered election system violates the affected voters' constitutional rights by treating them unequally. Hendricks said Kansas law did not appear to give Kobach the authority to create such a system.

Meanwhile, county election officials worried about the administrative headaches caused by a change so close to the election.

"It is craziness," said Don Merriman, the Saline County clerk, a Democrat. "It is frankly setting us up for mistakes to be made in all of the 105 counties. It is ludicrous we had to wait until this last hour."

And this article mentions that, last Friday, Wisconsin struck down a similar law.

 

[sophie]

Nah, perfect world theory behind it is that it is supposed to prevent voter fraud. A noble goal, but that's not how these states are using these laws since we obviously do not live in a perfect world. Since they can't be trusted to use these laws for what they were intended for, then the laws have to be taken off the books.

It's not a noble goal because instances of voter fraud (i.e. someone coming to a poll claiming to be someone they're not) are virtually nonexistent. It's a pointless waste of time, money, and resources, in addition to it being a blatantly discriminatory sham.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nah, perfect world theory behind it is that it is supposed to prevent voter fraud. A noble goal, but that's not how these states are using these laws since we obviously do not live in a perfect world. Since they can't be trusted to use these laws for what they were intended for, then the laws have to be taken off the books.

That's what I said. They are sold as 'to prevent' something that is not happening anyway. Election fraud happens, rarely. That's how you get people talking about Chicago. But voter fraud? Something that would be affected by any of these laws? There is no evidence that it has ever happened, and no plausible theory as to how it would even work.

 

[Gigaz]

Most European countries have an official ID card which every person must own (though usually not carry all the time).
For most Americans that's probably government overreach, but it clearly solves the voting rights problem

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Most European countries have an official ID card which every person must own (though usually not carry all the time).
For most Americans that's probably government overreach, but it clearly solves the voting rights problem

Depends. The question is whether you have to PAY for these universal ID cards.

 

[sophie]

Depends. The question is whether you have to PAY for these universal ID cards.

And where you have to go to get them.