Cartoon of the Day
Another great one from the best in the business, Michael Ramirez of Investor's Business Daily.
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Number of LSAT Tests Drop to an 11-Year Low
- Walmart Adds 125 New Jobs Every Day in March
- Some Food Prices Have Been Falling Over Last Year
- Law of Unintended Consquences
- Quote of the Day on Emerging Technology
- Shift in Fracking Workers Will Boost Oil Productio...
- Real Estate Market Gradually Improves
- P.J. O'Rourke on Cato's "Family Feud"
- New Restaurant Index Suggests Improving Economy
- Chicago Fed: Midwest Manufacturing Is Booming
50 Comments:
This is one of those incredibly stupid issues that, if not attached to political dogma, only a very few would differ. Clearly, if the left wanted to help those who are so desperately screwed up that they don't have an ID, they'd make the effort to help them get one.
Interesting, for hundreds of years, we've valued the unimpeded right to vote over the very low likelihood that some will abuse it and vote while ineligible. Our last 44 presidents were elected just fine without making people jump through the hoops of having to prove they are who they say they are. I'm still waiting to hear why exercising a fundamental right, as written in the Constitution, requires people to go through the trouble of paying to prove their identity.
It says alot about the Democrat party that they shamelessly champion people so pathetic they don't even have an ID. Imagine trying to get through your life without identification.
Pavel...there have been many instances of fraudulent voting, so the likelihood is not low at all. As far as I know, there's nothing in the constitution regarding identification....feel free to point it out.
I don't agree that this is a poll tax if that's what you mean, (I'd say it's much closer to infringing our right to arms by requiring a license and registration) however, I can understand those who may try to split that hair. I'd be all for having state issued ID's free of charge....and, considering how important they are to live, I'd rather hear people making that argument for the betterment of poor.
Why is it that you think it's ok, in this highly charged and filthy political system, to make things easy for those who would defraud it? Do you really find reaching in your wallet an insurmountable burden? Do you really know eligible voters who feel that way?
Typo in the title. The letter 't' is missing.
Caroon Al-Rashid was a Caliph of Baghdad in the 11the century, and close descendant of Haroon Al-Rashid.
that the dems are so vehemently against mandating IDs for voters makes me think that fraud is even more rampant that i imagine it to be. why else would they devote so much energy to this issue???
Nothing in the Constitution says I have to have a photo ID to vote.
Russell,
In the 10 years Greg Abbott has been our A.G. here in Texas, he's had at least 50 convictions for voter fraud. That's one state. Some are the 'dead people voting' variety and some were political operatives.
The new Texas law was based on the Indiana photo-voter law which was upheld by the Supremes in '08...any question as to why Holder is fighting this?
Any average person opposing the new voter ID law of Texas (or similar law) is the worst kind of idiot...any politically-employed individual in opposition is putting potential party gain ahead of the well being of the country.
Benjamin,
Just fyi, the new Texas law also grants free voter ID's, so the BS argument of a poll tax is also a non-starter.
Amazing to me that people can have any push back on potential voter fraud.
The current PRESIDENT'S previous organization, ACORN, was indicated on multiple counts of voter fraud in multiple states. If that doesn't hit close to home then nothing will.
This is nothing more than a partisan hack job by the party with a known history of not only committing voter fraud but actively organizing voter fraud as a strategic outcome. Nobody knows that better than those associated with the Chicago machine.
Voter fraud is a Democrat's best friend...
Quote from Benjamin: "Nothing in the Constitution says I have to have a photo ID to vote."
Nothing in the Constitution says you have a right to vote. It only says that you cannot be denied the right to vote based on certain criteria. Not being able to identify yourself as being eligible to vote is not one of them.
Quote from Benjamin: "Nothing in the Constitution says I have to have a photo ID to vote."
Nothing in the Constitution says you have a right to vote. It only says that you cannot be denied the right to vote based on certain criteria. Not being able to identify yourself as being eligible to vote is not one of them.
Any bartender can tell you that fake IDs are not that hard to come by, and any illegal immigrant could probably point you in the direction of getting some fake information and possibly real documentation of other people that would allow you to get a real and valid (though incorrect and thus illegal) government issued ID.
Additionally, any bouncer at a bar can tell you that one way to keep out undesirables from a club is to claim there is a problem with their ID; a scratch or bad picture is sufficient. You can affect the outcome of a vote as easily by denying suspected opponent supporters access to the polls as you can by casting multiple votes for your preferred candidate.
Anyone who believes that there would be less voter fraud because of a regulation and a piece of paper doesn't understand the nature of voter fraud: who would want to commit it, how they would go about it.
A photo ID requirement is another instance of unqualified people using poor judgement to extend the use of a bad procedure. It is expensive because it is useless.
Paul: It says alot about the Democrat party that they shamelessly champion people so pathetic they don't even have an ID. Imagine trying to get through your life without identification.
Pathetic.
Mike: In the 10 years Greg Abbott has been our A.G. here in Texas, he's had at least 50 convictions for voter fraud.
Um, that's five per year. And they were convicted under existing laws.
Certainly, it should be possible increase security of the electoral system without making it difficult for people to vote, especially poor, minority or elderly.
Yeah, I do not like the idea of requiring voters to present IDs for voting. I mean, the Constitution clearly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," (Amendment XIV, Section 1). It seems to me that requiring anything, whether it be a poll tax, literacy test, etc., is a violation of this.
It seems to me that requiring anything, whether it be a poll tax, literacy test, etc., is a violation of this.
Jon, I think those are tests of ability to vote while a simple verification tests eligibility, No?
"Certainly, it should be possible increase security of the electoral system without making it difficult for people to vote, especially poor, minority or elderly"...
Always dragging out that strawman song & dance of pandering to the incompetent...
geo has hit the nail on the head.
originally, women could not vote, nor blacks, nor even adult white males who did not own property.
it seems to me that demonstrating that you are who you say you are is a very reasonable request when voting.
what's the downside?
this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
certainly seems to give you the right to vote.
but does it not also seem to create the obligation of polling places to determine that you are, in fact, born here or naturalized?
it seems to me that checking to be sure you, in fact, posses those rights is not a violation of them.
if, as in texas, ID's are free, well, that's not a poll tax or a literacy test, just a way to establish identity. there is no written test to get an ID.
You need a photo ID to go to the movies?
Zachriel,
Congratulations, you found one person on the planet so far removed from society, yet still feels compelled to vote. I wish you liberals would stop insulting everyone's intelligence and just admit you need the vote fraud to win elections.
"You need a photo ID to go to the movies?"
if you look under 17 and want to see an R rated one you sure do.
i used to get carded at movies (long ago) but then, i still get carded buying booze now if i have a baseball hat on, and i'm 40.
Quote from Jon Murphy: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," (Amendment XIV, Section 1)."
The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can stop anybody, anywhere, for any reason, or no reason, and demand identification under penalty of arrest for refusal, and you think showing ID in order to show that you are eligible to vote at the location you want to vote is a violation of a person's priviledges and immunities?
Perhaps these two issues together can provide a solution. Place a police officer outside each polling place to demand everybody's ID. If they refuse, then arrest them. If they provide ID, then let them in to vote, no ID required.
I live in Indiana. Pulling my license out of my wallet for 5 seconds to prove I'm me is no big deal.
geo-
i'm not sure that's the right way to justify the practice.
while i'm all for asking people to demonstrate that they are us citizens to vote, i think that police being able to demand ID for no reason is a violation of rights to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure etc.
that makes it a poor justification for anything to my mind.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can stop anybody, anywhere, for any reason, or no reason, and demand identification under penalty of arrest for refusal, and you think showing ID in order to show that you are eligible to vote at the location you want to vote is a violation of a person's priviledges and immunities?
I do. I also believe the police conduct is unconstitutional.
The way I read that section of the Constitution is that any impediment to one's Constitutional rights is unconstitutional. The need to show any ID or be turned away from voting, to me, is grossly unconstitutional and reeks of the same government hard-handedness I rally against. I do not believe some government ID issuing agency should have the power to deny folks the freedom to vote.
I don't think a person's right to vote should be voided because:
"Your ID has expired"
"The picture's faded"
"We don't allow temporary licenses as a form of ID"
etc.
Jon Murphy: "It seems to me that requiring anything, whether it be a poll tax, literacy test, etc., is a violation of this."
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you. As Mike above pointed out:
"The new Texas law was based on the Indiana photo-voter law which was upheld by the Supremes in '08"
The Court upheld the constitutionality of Indiana's law by a 6 to 3 margin. Furthermore, one of those dissenters, Stephen Breyer, noted that voter ID laws in general were constitutional. Breyer argued that Indiana's procedures for obtaining a voter ID were the problem - that they represented a costly and inhibiting burden for low income citizens.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can stop anybody, anywhere, for any reason, or no reason, and demand identification under penalty of arrest for refusal
Can you point to this SCOTUS ruling? I'm skeptical of the claim "anywhere, for any reason, or no reason", as well as the arrest for refusal. I go out of my house without ID of any kind much of the time, carrying only money and a key. I'd like to see the SCOTUS ruling declaring that behavior illegal.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
I know I am arguing against precedence here. But that doesn't mean the Court hasn't been wrong before: Plessey v. Ferguson comes readily to mind.
One of the great things about our system is that even the Supreme Court's ruling isn't final.
jon-
"
The way I read that section of the Constitution is that any impediment to one's Constitutional rights is unconstitutional"
i think you are looking at this from the wrong angle.
the right to vote is one thing and ought to be freely exercised.
but being asked to demonstrate that you have that right seems like a separate issue.
it seems a basic and straightforward to precaution to make sure that those voting have the right to do so. once that is established, they can exercise their right freely, but asking they they demonstrate that they have it seems pretty basic.
it prevents what in many places has become rampant fraud.
which right shall have superiority? the right to not have to prove who you are to vote or the right not to have your vote diluted by those committing fraud?
which serves to create a truer democracy?
consider an example:
i used to belong to the olympic club in san francisco. getting in is not easy, but i played rugby for them and boxed for them for years.
when i would go to the club, i had to show ID. i had a right to be there and to use the facilities, but they wanted to confirm that right.
far from limiting my rights, this protected them. it kept me from having to share ringtime, workout space, and pool lanes with people who did not have that right.
it made my right to be there more valuable.
preventing people from voting fraudulently works the same way. my right to vote is protected and made more valuable by preventing those who lack that right from voting. i get a greater share of the democracy.
thus, far from diminishing the right of suffrage, checking ID enhances it.
this argument that legitimate voters lack id's is absurd. id cards and drivers licenses are free. the notion that it is some sort of undue burden to get one is preposterous. you spend one afternoon, once, then get free renewals, often by mail. wost case, it's a couple hours once ever 5-7 years.
hell, we would not even need photo id to do this, just a thumbprint scanner. get in the system once, and you are all set for life. nothing to remember to carry, it's easy. or, just show your id.
this is really easy to solve.
these purported "burdens" are just excuse making for fraud.
Zachriel,
"Um, that's five per year. And they were convicted under existing laws."
Um, ya, we don't vote every year...not to mention the fact that current (lack of) law makes it nearly impossible to catch or prosecute...to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, if you don't see 50 as the very tip of the iceberg, you must be a progressive hack.
Jon M: "I do. I also believe the police conduct is unconstitutional."
I'm with Jon on this. Especially the police conduct business.
When the 14th amendment was adopted, no one carried IDs to prove who they were, so proving your identity couldn't have been a consideration then, and probably shouldn't be now.
Votor fraud? Sure. With or without an ID card. How big a problem is it, really? Big enough to require positive ID? If so, a card is the wrong way to do it. An implanted RFID chip would be much more certain, as would tattoos on everyone's forearm.*
*please note the last sentence is sarcasm.
I understand your point Morganovich.
But consider this: when I register to vote, I need to prove I am who I am and I live in that state/district/ward (when I moved, I just needed to show an ID and my apartment lease). Why do I need to do this again when I go to the polls?
For the record, I am not arguing that the need to show ID is an undue burden or impediment. I know there are many ways around that. I am just questioning the need to show ID in the first place.
As I am sure I've already demonstrated, I have an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution. Hell, I think having to show ID to fly is unconstitutional.
To answer your rather important question, I think the right to vote unimpeded takes precedence over the protection of that right. I think there are better, more constitutional, ways of protecting that right then voter ID laws.
Now, all that being said, if voter ID laws ever came to my state, I'd probably not put up a big fuss over it.
One digression (this is unrelated to my point above, so if you're bored, skip): I'm not sure your analogy about the fitness club holds up here, Morganovich. The club is a private organization who can allow or deny folks the privilege to use their facility. The right to vote cannot be denied.
Jon M: "I know I am arguing against precedence here. But that doesn't mean the Court hasn't been wrong before: Plessey v. Ferguson comes readily to mind."
The SCOTUS has been wrong plenty of times. It's easy to find examples.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Gonzales v. Raich
Wickard v. Filburn
Come to mind without much effort, and without even cracking open a book or a google.
The SCOTUS has been wrong plenty of times. It's easy to find examples.
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Gonzales v. Raich
Wickard v. Filburn
Right, and while I agree with you, I meant more that the Supreme Court made a ruling and it was later overturned. To my knowledge, only Dred Scott has been overturned on that list.
M: "i used to belong to the olympic club in san francisco. getting in is not easy, but i played rugby for them and boxed for them for years."
This may not be a good example, as I assume it's a private club, which can require pretty much anything they wish, to gain admission.
While a voter ID card seems innocuous
in itself, my concern is the ever increasing requirements to "show us your papers", and the illegitimate uses information about us can be used.
Could a State require ID to determine my US citizenship, and therefore my eligibility to enter that state from another? Say from California to Arizona?
Would you feel comfortable with a requirement for a national ID card?
jon-
"Why do I need to do this again when I go to the polls?"
to make sure you do not use my name or that you are not registered several times under false names.
i went to school in rhode island, the dead guy voting capital of the US. it's a serious issue. it's how buddy cianci got reelected.
i was not holding up the olympic club as an analouge for suffrage rights, just uaing it as a way to show that requireing proof you have a right can make a right more valauble.
the US is a club too. being a member conveys privileges, and these are both valuable and capable of being lost. asking for a demonstration of membership does not diminish the rights of membership.
it protects them.
why be a member in good standing when you can get the benefits of one without doing so?
you yourself admit that the burden is small.
we may have different notions about how widespread the fraud is.
any party in power, especially for a long time making it effectively a machine, has great control over voter registration and the ability to falsify it. examples of towns of 10000 with 13000 registered voters abound.
requiring ID makes that prohibitively expensive. adding 9 names to the voter roll and having your nephew vote all over town is easy. making him 9 id's is much less so.
this is not about national id cards and ron's example of some state requiring proof i can enter from another state is already illegal (and should be).
i don't think anyone should have to carry id or show it for no reason.
but if we accept that the law id "you must be 21 to drink" and that it is legal and reasonable to verify that with ID, how is a voter id law any different?
in utah, the state liquor store will demand ID because that is how they are sure the law is being followed. if they asked for id to vote, it seems like the exact same thing to me.
i find it curious that the same politicians railing against voter id are all for liquor buyer id. it's not an undue burden to buy beer, but it is to vote?
that sounds awfully fishy to me. it smacks of ulterior motive, namely, continuing to cheat on election day.
this may not be a big deal in nashua, but in chicago or providence, it's a very different story. whole political dynasties are founded on it.
personally, i value my right to not have my vote diluted more than i value my right to vote without proving i have a right to.
"The right to vote cannot be denied."
Unless you commit a felony.
Not to mention, we have a constitutionally protected "right" that we have to get a background check, register and/or be licensed for before we can exercise it (after paying for classes in some places). If you think the right to vote is less important than the right to carry a gun, you don't value it much to begin with, and that may be the problem. Voting may have less "immediate" danger than guns, but voter fraud effects a much larger group of people.
""The right to vote cannot be denied."
Unless you commit a felony."
or are deemed mentally incompetent by the state.
i actually really like the estonian voting rules:
if you go on welfare, you lose the vote until you have been off for 6 months.
thus, welfare recipients cannot vote themselves more welfare. if you live off the state, you cannot shape it.
it would work wonders here.
Morg,
I think that's a great idea. You run for president and I'll vote for you....with our current voting laws, that makes 47 votes right there!
juandos: Always dragging out that strawman song & dance of pandering to the incompetent...
The woman provided multiple documents, but it wasn't sufficient. She is just one example of a common problem.
Paul: Congratulations, you found one person on the planet so far removed from society ...
Here's another.
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/319-67/10340-86-year-old-ohio-veteran-denied-vote-under-id-law
Paul: ... yet still feels compelled to vote.
These people have the right to vote. What might be easy to you might be a burden to someone else. It isn't too much to craft a law that provides the necessary security while safeguarding the right of people to vote.
geoih: The Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can stop anybody, anywhere, for any reason, or no reason, and demand identification under penalty of arrest for refusal ...
No. The power of stop and identify only requires you to provide your name, and even then, you can only be forced to provide your name if there is reasonable suspicion of your participation in an illegal activity (Terry v. Ohio, Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada).
morganovich: far from limiting my rights, this protected them.
You would probably be pretty peeved if they wouldn't let you in because you don't have a drivers license. However, your point is reasonable. The right to vote is only meaningful if votes are cast and counted fairly.
Quote from Jon Murphy: "I do not believe some government ID issuing agency should have the power to deny folks the freedom to vote."
Voting is simply the charade used by the state to make the gullible populace think they have control of the process. At best, voting simply allows for a different set of conmen and goons to continue to rob you. At worst, it legitimizes all manner of corruption and violence in the minds of the indoctrinated.
Requiring ID for voting is using one state process to slow down the corruption of another state process. Not requiring ID doesn't empower the populace. It empowers the state.
mike-
as the joke goes:
"i should run for president just to get the background check by the media. i'd love to piece my 20's together."
Zachriel,
"It isn't too much to craft a law that provides the necessary security while safeguarding the right of people to vote."
I don't know what this mythical "necessary security" would be that doesn't include photo ID, but I guarantee the Democrat fraudsters would be against it.
The ACORN Democrats protest waaay to much against securing vote integrity. It's quite obvious why.
My wife is dual-citizen Colombian. When she goes to vote at the consulate, they ask for ID and then dip in her finger in permanent ink so it's obvious she voted(once.) Nobody whines about it in Colombia. Only the party of Boss Tweed, Tom Pendergast, and Mayor Daley find it to be such an outrage.
Only the party of Boss Tweed, Tom Pendergast, and Mayor Daley find it to be such an outrage.
For the record, I am a libertarian (sometimes bordering on anarchist) and I find it to be an outrage.
"it would work wonders here."
And Democrats would never win another election. So, not a prayer of it being enacted.
Mike: "If you think the right to vote is less important than the right to carry a gun, you don't value it much to begin with, and that may be the problem."
Those are two different types of rights. My natural right to self defense includes the long recognized right to keep and bear arms. This right predates the US Constitution, and is affirmed by it, with prohibitions on infringement of that right by government.
The right to vote, on the other hand, is a right granted by government, and sadly, as geoih points out, isn't as useful as we are led to believe it is.
So, yes, I consider the right to vote to be less valuable than my right to keep and bear arms.
Post a Comment
<< Home