|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 5, 2014 12:25:09 GMT
You evidently view it as a given that the states will not issue the necessary documentation at no charge; therefore, you conclude that I must either "support the denial of voting rights" to those lacking the proper documentation, or I must change my position as regarding the necessity of one's having a voter ID. I reject the fundamental premise; therefore, I reject your conclusion.
No, I'm stating a FACT!
To my knowledge not a single State will provide a certified copy of a birth certificate for free. I know for a fact that California, where I was born will not, and I know for a fact that Texas that has a Voter ID Law that would require a person to furnish their birth certificate to obtain a Voter ID card will not.
Now, you provide evidence of ANY STATE that will furnish a free certified copy of the person's birth certificate on demand so they can obtain a "free" Voter ID card.
I'm not stating they "can't" but instead that they "refuse" to provide the necessary documents free of charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 5, 2014 23:26:47 GMT
You evidently view it as a given that the states will not issue the necessary documentation at no charge; therefore, you conclude that I must either "support the denial of voting rights" to those lacking the proper documentation, or I must change my position as regarding the necessity of one's having a voter ID. I reject the fundamental premise; therefore, I reject your conclusion. No, I'm stating a FACT!
To my knowledge not a single State will provide a certified copy of a birth certificate for free. I know for a fact that California, where I was born will not, and I know for a fact that Texas that has a Voter ID Law that would require a person to furnish their birth certificate to obtain a Voter ID card will not.
Now, you provide evidence of ANY STATE that will furnish a free certified copy of the person's birth certificate on demand so they can obtain a "free" Voter ID card.
I'm not stating they "can't" but instead that they "refuse" to provide the necessary documents free of charge.
Then it would be a very good idea, I believe, to pressure these states to provide the necessary documentation, free of charge.I am not asserting that they are currently congenial to the idea of doing so; but why not pressure them to do precisely this, in exchange for their having strict voter-ID laws? I would certainly be very pleased with this solution. Wouldn't you? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 6, 2014 13:45:53 GMT
Then it would be a very good idea, I believe, to pressure these states to provide the necessary documentation, free of charge.I am not asserting that they are currently congenial to the idea of doing so; but why not pressure them to do precisely this, in exchange for their having strict voter-ID laws? I would certainly be very pleased with this solution. Wouldn't you?
How is Texas, that has a Voter ID Law, going to require Washington, that doesn't have a Voter ID Law, to furnish a copy of a birth certificate to a person born in Washington that now lives in Texas?
How strange that you object to Obamacare because even one person might not be able to keep their doctor but don't seem to mind that millions and millions of American citizens will be prohibited from voting because they can't afford the documents necessary to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 2:25:17 GMT
Then it would be a very good idea, I believe, to pressure these states to provide the necessary documentation, free of charge.I am not asserting that they are currently congenial to the idea of doing so; but why not pressure them to do precisely this, in exchange for their having strict voter-ID laws? I would certainly be very pleased with this solution. Wouldn't you?
How is Texas, that has a Voter ID Law, going to require Washington, that doesn't have a Voter ID Law, to furnish a copy of a birth certificate to a person born in Washington that now lives in Texas?
How strange that you object to Obamacare because even one person might not be able to keep their doctor but don't seem to mind that millions and millions of American citizens will be prohibited from voting because they can't afford the documents necessary to vote.
To declare that I really "don't seem to mind" that "millions and millions of American citizens will be prohibited from voting" is to erect a strawman. I would imagine that the governors of Washington state and Texas could work out something, if they desired to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 7, 2014 12:19:05 GMT
To declare that I really "don't seem to mind" that "millions and millions of American citizens will be prohibited from voting" is to erect a strawman. I would imagine that the governors of Washington state and Texas could work out something, if they desired to do so.
Yes, it was a "strawman" argument because I do believe you care about millions of US citizens that are disenfranchised today because of voter ID laws.
I could imagine the conversation between the governors of Washington and Texas going something like this:
TX Gov., "We have a serious concern related to non-citizens possibly voting in our federal elections."
WA Gov., "That's a voter registration issue so are you doing something about verifying that those that register to vote are entitled to vote in the federal elections?"
TX Gov., "Yes we are and, in fact, our Board of Elections is actively investigating those that might register to vote that are either ex-felons or non-citizens and if we catch them we're going to prosecute them."
WA Gov., "Good, we do that as well because we don't want people that aren't allowed to vote affecting election outcomes either."
TX Gov., "We also have a concern with people impersonating other people at the polls that can affect election results."
WA Gov., "I've heard that you've identified more possible cases of this happening than any other state. How many cases have you prosecuted in recent years?"
TX Gov., "We've been very aggressive in this and between 2004 and 2010 we've prosecuted four people but I don't know the outcome of the trials."
WA Gov., "Four people over four federal election cycles? That's a lot when compared to Washington where we haven't even found a single case of it happening."
TX Gov., "We think that four cases is way to many so we've passed a law requiring a person to establish they are a US citizen to obtain a free Voter ID card from the State of Texas and we need your help. We have several thousand Texas citizens today that were born in Washington State and they are too poor to be able to afford to purchase a copy of their Washington birth certificate. Can you furnish free certified copies to them so they can prove they're a US citizen?"
WA Gov., "Are you serious? That would cost the Washington taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars when you've only averaged one possible case of voter impersonation fraud occuring per election cycle! I don't think I could convince the People of Washington to fund a problem that really doesn't appear to exist in Texas when it comes to voter impersonation. I'd lose my damn job if I tried to do that. We have actual problems with just paying for education in Washington today and you want us to throw money at what isn't even a real problem in Texas based upon what you're telling me? How about you repeal your voter ID law or simply drop the provision that they have to prove US citizenship "at the polls" when that is really a voter registration problem?"
TX Gov., "Gee, I never thought of that. If we confirm they are entitled to vote based upon their registration to vote then we don't need to require they prove it when they actually vote during the election do we?"
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 7, 2014 23:23:27 GMT
To declare that I really "don't seem to mind" that "millions and millions of American citizens will be prohibited from voting" is to erect a strawman. I would imagine that the governors of Washington state and Texas could work out something, if they desired to do so.
Yes, it was a "strawman" argument because I do believe you care about millions of US citizens that are disenfranchised today because of voter ID laws.
I could imagine the conversation between the governors of Washington and Texas going something like this:
TX Gov., "We have a serious concern related to non-citizens possibly voting in our federal elections."
WA Gov., "That's a voter registration issue so are you doing something about verifying that those that register to vote are entitled to vote in the federal elections?"
TX Gov., "Yes we are and, in fact, our Board of Elections is actively investigating those that might register to vote that are either ex-felons or non-citizens and if we catch them we're going to prosecute them."
WA Gov., "Good, we do that as well because we don't want people that aren't allowed to vote affecting election outcomes either."
TX Gov., "We also have a concern with people impersonating other people at the polls that can affect election results."
WA Gov., "I've heard that you've identified more possible cases of this happening than any other state. How many cases have you prosecuted in recent years?"
TX Gov., "We've been very aggressive in this and between 2004 and 2010 we've prosecuted four people but I don't know the outcome of the trials."
WA Gov., "Four people over four federal election cycles? That's a lot when compared to Washington where we haven't even found a single case of it happening."
TX Gov., "We think that four cases is way to many so we've passed a law requiring a person to establish they are a US citizen to obtain a free Voter ID card from the State of Texas and we need your help. We have several thousand Texas citizens today that were born in Washington State and they are too poor to be able to afford to purchase a copy of their Washington birth certificate. Can you furnish free certified copies to them so they can prove they're a US citizen?"
WA Gov., "Are you serious? That would cost the Washington taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars when you've only averaged one possible case of voter impersonation fraud occuring per election cycle! I don't think I could convince the People of Washington to fund a problem that really doesn't appear to exist in Texas when it comes to voter impersonation. I'd lose my damn job if I tried to do that. We have actual problems with just paying for education in Washington today and you want us to throw money at what isn't even a real problem in Texas based upon what you're telling me? How about you repeal your voter ID law or simply drop the provision that they have to prove US citizenship "at the polls" when that is really a voter registration problem?"
TX Gov., "Gee, I never thought of that. If we confirm they are entitled to vote based upon their registration to vote then we don't need to require they prove it when they actually vote during the election do we?"
How about this: The state of Texas could pay the state of Washington for the proper documentation; and vice-versa, if Washington state should decide to do the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 8, 2014 10:04:28 GMT
How about this: The state of Texas could pay the state of Washington for the proper documentation; and vice-versa, if Washington state should decide to do the same thing.
If Texas has any reason to doubt the citizenship of the person registering to vote then why doesn't Texas just subpoena a copy of the birth certificate? States do respect the subpoena of official documents and records from other states and will furnish those documents at no charge from what I understand. Of course to obtain the subpoena I would assume that Texas would have to present a reason to the court.
Something that bothers me is that people are assumed to be guilty of a criminal offense by committing perjury on their voter registration form. That's really at the heart of the issue. When the person registers to vote they must sign a statement under penalty of perjury that they are a US citizen and lawfully entitled to vote and to intentionally lie is a criminal offense. The "state" is basically requiring the person to prove they are innocent of committing perjury when they registered to vote by demanding proof of citizenship to obtain a voter ID card.
I would also believe that the problem of "citizenship" related to registering to vote is far less than the problem of ex-felons, that are prohibited from voting, registering to vote and voting in an election. Why isn't the "state" demanding that all US citizens prove that they're not an ex-felon when they apply for a voter ID card?
It is also interesting to note that if I move to Texas I can obtain a Texas drivers license without providing "proof of citizenship" because I have a WA State drivers license... that doesn't establish anywhere that I'm a US citizen!!! I can then use the Texas drivers license to vote without ever proving I'm a US citizen.
Another interesting note. The greatest group of individuals that don't have legal documents that would allow them to vote are African-Americans where a study showed that about 25% don't have those documents. Virtually all African-Americans living in the United States are US citizens and everyone knows that. What possible grounds would a state government have to even remotely suspect that an African-American registering to vote and then voting isn't a US citizen?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 8, 2014 10:10:53 GMT
I'd really like to return to the topic of the thread.
If anything I believe that "progressives" are far more likely to admit that they are for "nanny-state" government (a prejorative term that they might not directly admit to though) than "conservatives" but both "progressive-liberal" and "social-conservative" political agendas embrace nanny-state government.
While both advocate "nanny-state" government in their political agendas it would appear to me that the "social-conservatives" tend to deny it more than the "progressive-liberals" and that would reflect greater hypocrisy by the "social-conservatives" wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 8, 2014 23:36:14 GMT
How about this: The state of Texas could pay the state of Washington for the proper documentation; and vice-versa, if Washington state should decide to do the same thing.
If Texas has any reason to doubt the citizenship of the person registering to vote then why doesn't Texas just subpoena a copy of the birth certificate? States do respect the subpoena of official documents and records from other states and will furnish those documents at no charge from what I understand. Of course to obtain the subpoena I would assume that Texas would have to present a reason to the court.
Something that bothers me is that people are assumed to be guilty of a criminal offense by committing perjury on their voter registration form. That's really at the heart of the issue. When the person registers to vote they must sign a statement under penalty of perjury that they are a US citizen and lawfully entitled to vote and to intentionally lie is a criminal offense. The "state" is basically requiring the person to prove they are innocent of committing perjury when they registered to vote by demanding proof of citizenship to obtain a voter ID card.
I would also believe that the problem of "citizenship" related to registering to vote is far less than the problem of ex-felons, that are prohibited from voting, registering to vote and voting in an election. Why isn't the "state" demanding that all US citizens prove that they're not an ex-felon when they apply for a voter ID card?
It is also interesting to note that if I move to Texas I can obtain a Texas drivers license without providing "proof of citizenship" because I have a WA State drivers license... that doesn't establish anywhere that I'm a US citizen!!! I can then use the Texas drivers license to vote without ever proving I'm a US citizen.
Another interesting note. The greatest group of individuals that don't have legal documents that would allow them to vote are African-Americans where a study showed that about 25% don't have those documents. Virtually all African-Americans living in the United States are US citizens and everyone knows that. What possible grounds would a state government have to even remotely suspect that an African-American registering to vote and then voting isn't a US citizen?
It is really not about one's being considered guilty until proven innocent--that, I believe, is an intentionally inflammatory way of framing the issue--but rather, it is about one's preferring a bit more than the honor system for proving American citizenship. If some percentage of those African-Americans lacking proper documentation cannot afford to purchase those documents, I would very much favor the government's providing them at no charge--as I would also for low-income white Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, et al. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 9, 2014 11:20:25 GMT
It is really not about one's being considered guilty until proven innocent--that, I believe, is an intentionally inflammatory way of framing the issue--but rather, it is about one's preferring a bit more than the honor system for proving American citizenship. If some percentage of those African-Americans lacking proper documentation cannot afford to purchase those documents, I would very much favor the government's providing them at no charge--as I would also for low-income white Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, et al.
Literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of votes with virtually no cases of voter impersonation at the polls so apparently the "honor system" is working very, very well.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 10, 2014 1:58:21 GMT
It is really not about one's being considered guilty until proven innocent--that, I believe, is an intentionally inflammatory way of framing the issue--but rather, it is about one's preferring a bit more than the honor system for proving American citizenship. If some percentage of those African-Americans lacking proper documentation cannot afford to purchase those documents, I would very much favor the government's providing them at no charge--as I would also for low-income white Americans, Asian-Americans, Latino-Americans, et al.
Literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of votes with virtually no cases of voter impersonation at the polls so apparently the "honor system" is working very, very well.
You do, indeed, have a rather touching faith in the efficacy of the honor system... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 10, 2014 12:19:16 GMT
Literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of votes with virtually no cases of voter impersonation at the polls so apparently the "honor system" is working very, very well.
You do, indeed, have a rather touching faith in the efficacy of the honor system...
Accepting factual information is not a matter of faith. As I recall the odds of a person misrepresenting themselves at the polls (i.e. committing voter impersonation fraud that the Voter ID Laws address) is something like 1:100,000,000. When addressing the "honor system" related to voting it isn't a issue of faith but instead it's a issue of facts. I can live with possibly one person out of one hundred million misrepresenting who they are when they go to vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 11, 2014 0:39:58 GMT
You do, indeed, have a rather touching faith in the efficacy of the honor system...
Accepting factual information is not a matter of faith. As I recall the odds of a person misrepresenting themselves at the polls (i.e. committing voter impersonation fraud that the Voter ID Laws address) is something like 1:100,000,000. When addressing the "honor system" related to voting it isn't a issue of faith but instead it's a issue of facts. I can live with possibly one person out of one hundred million misrepresenting who they are when they go to vote.
From Kris Kobach in the Washington Post on July 13, 2011: "The [recent Washington Post] editorial asserted that voter fraud is a “minuscule” problem and that I failed to show that any of the 221 incidents of voter fraud reported in Kansas between 1997 and 2010 resulted in convictions. "In fact, I presented this information to the Kansas legislature in January, and the numbers were extensively reported by the media. The 221 incidents of voter fraud included absentee ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter and other crimes. The vast majority of the cases were never investigated fully because Kansas county attorneys lack the time and resources to pursue voter fraud at the expense of other criminal investigations. Of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions. All seven yielded convictions. "The frequency of voter fraud in Kansas is not unusual. Unfortunately, voter fraud has become a well-documented reality in American elections... "One of the most brazen cases of voter fraud occurred in a state representative race in Kansas City, Mo., last year. It was a Democratic primary between J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster in a district where the victor was certain to win the general election. Rizzo received about 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. The Somalis, who didn’t speak English, were coached to vote for Rizzo by an interpreter at the polling place. Rizzo ended up winning by one vote. In another example, an 18-month study by Minnesota Majority found that 341 felons in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area illegally voted in the 2008 election. Compared with the 2.7 million votes cast in the state, 341 seems insignificant. But after the recount of the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Franken’s margin of victory was only 312 votes. The illegal votes cast by felons were not discovered until after the recount, making 341 an awfully significant number." Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 11, 2014 10:57:37 GMT
Accepting factual information is not a matter of faith. As I recall the odds of a person misrepresenting themselves at the polls (i.e. committing voter impersonation fraud that the Voter ID Laws address) is something like 1:100,000,000. When addressing the "honor system" related to voting it isn't a issue of faith but instead it's a issue of facts. I can live with possibly one person out of one hundred million misrepresenting who they are when they go to vote.
From Kris Kobach in the Washington Post on July 13, 2011: "The [recent Washington Post] editorial asserted that voter fraud is a “minuscule” problem and that I failed to show that any of the 221 incidents of voter fraud reported in Kansas between 1997 and 2010 resulted in convictions. "In fact, I presented this information to the Kansas legislature in January, and the numbers were extensively reported by the media. The 221 incidents of voter fraud included absentee ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter and other crimes. The vast majority of the cases were never investigated fully because Kansas county attorneys lack the time and resources to pursue voter fraud at the expense of other criminal investigations. Of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions. All seven yielded convictions. "The frequency of voter fraud in Kansas is not unusual. Unfortunately, voter fraud has become a well-documented reality in American elections... "One of the most brazen cases of voter fraud occurred in a state representative race in Kansas City, Mo., last year. It was a Democratic primary between J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster in a district where the victor was certain to win the general election. Rizzo received about 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. The Somalis, who didn’t speak English, were coached to vote for Rizzo by an interpreter at the polling place. Rizzo ended up winning by one vote. In another example, an 18-month study by Minnesota Majority found that 341 felons in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area illegally voted in the 2008 election. Compared with the 2.7 million votes cast in the state, 341 seems insignificant. But after the recount of the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Franken’s margin of victory was only 312 votes. The illegal votes cast by felons were not discovered until after the recount, making 341 an awfully significant number." Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html
I believe this provides some glaring statistical information. A total of 221 cases of possible voter fraud in Kansas between 1997 and 2010 and the claim is made that they were not investigated fully because of a lack of budget and other priorities that is rarely the case. Normally when law enforcement doesn't "fully" investigate it's because the premilinary investigation fails to provide any indication that the allegation is supported by evidence. Law enforcement doesn't waste it's time when the preliminary invesigation indicates that a crime probably didn't occur. Only 30 of the cases provided enough evidence for law enforcement to even pursue the investigation and by the time law enforcement was through with it's full investigation in 23 of those cases law enforcement found that there wasn't evidence of fraud being committed and did not prosecute. It did prosecute 7 cases successfully but it doesn't mention if any of those cases were related to voter impersonation that Voter ID laws address.
Statistically this results in the fact that actual fraud in Kansas only occurs in about 3% of the cases where fraud is claimed to have occurred and it provides zero information on whether any voter impersonation at the polls occurred. In short, based upon the information from Kansas there is no support for a Voter ID law based upon the investigations by law enforcement.
We must also address the Democratic primary election of 2010 in Kansas where apparently Rizzo received 50 votes from Somolia citizens because two things are important. First is if this occurred it's a "voter registration fraud" case and not a "voter impersonation fraud" case. Next is that a primary election is a Political Party election and not a government election. No one is elected to any office in a primary election and, to my knowledge, a political party can allow anyone they want to vote in their primary. Nothing in the case presents any argument to support Voter ID laws. Finally in the Minnesota election where 341 (ex)felons voted this is another case of "Voter Registration Fraud" and not a case of "Voter Impersonation Fraud" and the Voter ID laws don't address voter registration issues. Nothing in this case presents any argument for Voter ID laws.
Voter fraud wears many masks and while "voter impersonation" can be one of those in none of the above cases is it cited or supported as being a problem. Not a single documented case of "voter impersonation fraud" which is all that "Voter ID laws addresse is referenced related to cases voter fraud in either Kansas or Minnesota in the above article.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 11, 2014 23:07:15 GMT
From Kris Kobach in the Washington Post on July 13, 2011: "The [recent Washington Post] editorial asserted that voter fraud is a “minuscule” problem and that I failed to show that any of the 221 incidents of voter fraud reported in Kansas between 1997 and 2010 resulted in convictions. "In fact, I presented this information to the Kansas legislature in January, and the numbers were extensively reported by the media. The 221 incidents of voter fraud included absentee ballot fraud, impersonation of another voter and other crimes. The vast majority of the cases were never investigated fully because Kansas county attorneys lack the time and resources to pursue voter fraud at the expense of other criminal investigations. Of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions. All seven yielded convictions. "The frequency of voter fraud in Kansas is not unusual. Unfortunately, voter fraud has become a well-documented reality in American elections... "One of the most brazen cases of voter fraud occurred in a state representative race in Kansas City, Mo., last year. It was a Democratic primary between J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster in a district where the victor was certain to win the general election. Rizzo received about 50 votes illegally cast by citizens of Somalia. The Somalis, who didn’t speak English, were coached to vote for Rizzo by an interpreter at the polling place. Rizzo ended up winning by one vote. In another example, an 18-month study by Minnesota Majority found that 341 felons in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area illegally voted in the 2008 election. Compared with the 2.7 million votes cast in the state, 341 seems insignificant. But after the recount of the U.S. Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Franken’s margin of victory was only 312 votes. The illegal votes cast by felons were not discovered until after the recount, making 341 an awfully significant number." Here is the link: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html
I believe this provides some glaring statistical information. A total of 221 cases of possible voter fraud in Kansas between 1997 and 2010 and the claim is made that they were not investigated fully because of a lack of budget and other priorities that is rarely the case. Normally when law enforcement doesn't "fully" investigate it's because the premilinary investigation fails to provide any indication that the allegation is supported by evidence. Law enforcement doesn't waste it's time when the preliminary invesigation indicates that a crime probably didn't occur. Only 30 of the cases provided enough evidence for law enforcement to even pursue the investigation and by the time law enforcement was through with it's full investigation in 23 of those cases law enforcement found that there wasn't evidence of fraud being committed and did not prosecute. It did prosecute 7 cases successfully but it doesn't mention if any of those cases were related to voter impersonation that Voter ID laws address.
Statistically this results in the fact that actual fraud in Kansas only occurs in about 3% of the cases where fraud is claimed to have occurred and it provides zero information on whether any voter impersonation at the polls occurred. In short, based upon the information from Kansas there is no support for a Voter ID law based upon the investigations by law enforcement.
We must also address the Democratic primary election of 2010 in Kansas where apparently Rizzo received 50 votes from Somolia citizens because two things are important. First is if this occurred it's a "voter registration fraud" case and not a "voter impersonation fraud" case. Next is that a primary election is a Political Party election and not a government election. No one is elected to any office in a primary election and, to my knowledge, a political party can allow anyone they want to vote in their primary. Nothing in the case presents any argument to support Voter ID laws. Finally in the Minnesota election where 341 (ex)felons voted this is another case of "Voter Registration Fraud" and not a case of "Voter Impersonation Fraud" and the Voter ID laws don't address voter registration issues. Nothing in this case presents any argument for Voter ID laws.
Voter fraud wears many masks and while "voter impersonation" can be one of those in none of the above cases is it cited or supported as being a problem. Not a single documented case of "voter impersonation fraud" which is all that "Voter ID laws addresse is referenced related to cases voter fraud in either Kansas or Minnesota in the above article.
With this, you have breezily dismissed the author's assertion that the authorities "lack the time and resources" necessary to pursue such matters, "at the expense of other criminal investigations." You are certainly correct, however, that voter fraud is multi-faceted; and that voter impersonation is merely one of those facets. |
|
