Georgia has asked the Justice Department to reconsider its rejection of the state’s system of using Social Security numbers and driver’s license data to check whether prospective voters are citizens, Secretary of State Karen Handel announced Wednesday.
“I do not believe there is anything discriminatory in verifying voter information and citizenship,” Ms. Handel said in a statement. “It is my hope that the Department of Justice will review this request, with the information and data provided, and grant preclearance to the State of Georgia for these verification processes.”
{ 100 comments }
Welcome to the Obamanation.
This is not Obamantion.
That phrase is stupid and worn out.
This is politics and rule one is to change the rules in your favor. If you seriously think the voter id rule was created to “protect” the integrity of elections you are out of your mind.
As former Chairman of the Alabama GOP, Marty Connors, has so famously been quoted on several topics (ie felon exclusion, voter ids, provisional ballots), “We are opposed because they typically don’t vote Republican.”
GW,
I guess I am out of my mind. I don’t want illegal immigrants who are here to be able to vote. If you think that to change the rules to your favor, that either party should make illegal immigrants legal to gain their vote, I will disagree with that. I am not saying that they won’t try, I am saying they shouldn’t.
I have no idea what Marty Conners said, or in what context, nor do I care about it a lot. This is a GA forum about GA issues. If you want to impress me, get a current or former GA GOP state chairman to say something.
Is there ANY evidence that illegal aliens are trying to vote? Isn’t that the last thing they would want to try to do? What’s really happening is that in the manufactured paranoia over this, many qualified voters are being rejected because of tiny discrepancies between the SoS’s records and the DMV’s records.
I don’t want illegal voters either, but it seems our system is perfectly capable of preventing it. It just doesn’t happen.
If you were an illegal alien and there was someone one the ballot who was talking about making you a citizen, wouldn’t you want to vote for him if you could get away with it?
You probably have a lock on your front door. You probably lock it from time to time even though there is no proof that anyone is trying to break in.
In the following link, you can follow references to assorted newspaper investigations into voter fraud. And there are more articles you can find.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23731
By the way, state laws requiring verification of eligibility to vote do not affect federal elections, which would remain lax.
If you were an illegal alien, what in the world would make you think that you could get away with it? You are going to track down the voting precinct of the person whose ID you stole and show up there to commit a felony?
I don’t think so.
Donna, I can’t respond too much about other states without knowing their registration and election procedures, but just taking the first few paragraphs of that article:
- Voting twice- it’s pretty risky to show up somewhere and pretend to be someone else and hope they haven’t already voted and that no one will recognize you (it is a felony after all), and it’s a lot of work to figure out that person’s precinct and go there. It’s probably much easier to try to vote once in person and once absentee, but then an ID won’t prevent that.
- There are a lot more plausible reasons why an address may be incorrect than voter fraud.
- Photo ID isn’t going to fix vote-buying.
- Photo ID isn’t going to fix canvassers making up names for voter registration forms because they get paid by the quantity the submit. Besides, no one really expects or intends these to turn into votes. It is just a scam to make money.
- Dead people and those who have just moved away remaining on the voter rolls is just a function of poor bookkeeping on the states part. Dead people voting is usually just a poll worker crossing off a widow’s husbands name instead of hers (or vice versa).
- Photo ID isn’t going to prevent someone from voting in NY and Florida if they are on the roll in both places.
There are lots of kinds of potential voter fraud, but a photo ID in Georgia doesn’t do anything to stop any of it. Not only that, my drivers license picture is already 10 years old, and I guess as long as I renew online they’ll keep using the same picture. Am I going to be bounced someday because I no longer look enough like my picture? Or are we only looking for brown people?
I think we had two ex-presidents head up a commission on how to improve voting a few years back. I liked the idea of making election day a federal holiday, and having a national voter ID card. That would prevent people from voting in different states on the same day.
Yes there is evidence illegals are trying and have voted. Should you doubt this do a freedom of information request with the DOJ for the GA pre-clearance submission and you will see that this is not “manufactured paranoia”.
The “quote” dispcrepancies were from naturalized folks who were non-citizens when they got their driver’s license, became naturalized and registered to vote, but they never bothered to update their naturalization status with Driver’s Services.
So of course when SOS compared them with DMV, they showed as a non-citizen. Whose respnsibility is it to update DMV with their changed status?
Well how did they know they were supposed to update their immigration status with the friggin’ DMV of all things.
Just as a minor correction, in Georgia, once a convicted felon has served his sentence, his voting rights are automatically restored.
I don’t think it is automatic… unless it changed recently… a few years ago I helped a lady and her father with the petition to the SOS requesting for his re-instatement.
Yep. It is automatic. Once a sentence is complete, go register at the local office. So long as the sentence shows over on the state’s computers, or you have a copy of the court order, that is all that is needed. An acquaintance of mine who had been convicted of a felony under Ga law recently received a sentence termination cutting his probation short by 2 years. He applied at the local office, gave them a PDF copy of the court order. The registrar checked with the probation office to verify he was indeed no longer serving a sentence, and now he is a registered voter. No need for judges, courts or other legal apparatus.
Technically, the law states that you only lose your voting rights if it is a conviction of “moral turpitude”, but the Sec. of State’s Office interprets that to mean any felony is by definition a conviction of “moral turpitude”.
I can give you the OCGA and Ga Const references, if you want them.
I think we agreed… I think our definition of and what was “automatic” was different.
If one was a registered voter prior to conviction… registration is not automatically reinstated upon ending of sentence… (rights and eligibility is automatic, I got it now) you have to re-register and prove your sentence has be served.
Correct. I meant one’s right to vote was automatically restored by virtue of no longer being disqualified. I apologize if I left the impression the felon had to do nothing to once again be a registered voter. But, he didn’t need to petition the SOS. He just had to register the same way any of the rest of us do.
I don’t think it was the concept that was the problem, it’s just that they were making no effort to rectify typos or any kind of minor discrepancy. Everybody whose info didn’t match exactly got rejected.
And, benevolus, that is exactly why only 60% of provisional ballots are counted.
This is a fact that is taken advantage of as well. One of my brightest students did a paper of voter suppression several years ago and these are topics that constantly come up in election admin. He practically wrote the “how to” book on preventing targeted groups from voting simply using laws on the books and using the governing philosophy of election law to further disenfranchise targets groups within the public.
So the people “disenfranchised” were the ones not following the law some how?
You probably know how it is done as well as I do: Change polling locations but don’t offer info on the new location.
Don’t keep enough provisional ballots around for those who are challenged. Turn people away if they aren’t in the roll exactly even though they are allowed to get a provisional.
Interesting that you bring up change of polling locations. In my county, I found out that we had consolidated precincts this week. I’m not even sure if my precinct still exists in name. I know it doesn’t exist with it’s previous geography. I have been told that new voter id cards and info will be mailed by the SOS office soon.
All that being said, I am willing to bet that if I went to my polling location next year without knowledge of the change, I could get someone from my voter registrars office on the phone to give the correct info on the day of voting if I saw my polling location closed.
The other problems you mention could probably be solved with a call to the SOS office.
Yes, those things can be solved. I just meant to say that it can be made harder or easier depending on the people involved.
My perception is that the people most affected by these things are elderly, urban voters. They may not have a photo ID because they’ve never needed one. It’s hard for them to get around. They don’t necessarily have the resources to solve these problems. They are much more likely to not get to vote when hurdles are placed in their way. And yet, I would think these are the last people we would want to disenfranchise.
So for me, I see; a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, likely disenfranchisement to a demographic that is strongly Democratic, promoted by Republicans, and I get suspicious.
You realize that they can get a free ID under the GA law? As for “hard to get around,” if they can make it to register to vote, and they can make it to the pools, I think they could get an ID.
The dem playbook is to yell disenfranchisement and voter suppression whenever they can get away with it.
Polls, not pools, but they may like it there too. I really have to start proofing better.
benevolus paranoius,
Just check your location online before you go to the polls if you thing someone is moving your poll just to disinfranchise you at the SOS website: http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/polllocator/PollLocator.aspx
By the way because of section 5 election officials must get DOJ pre-clearance BEFORE moving a polling place, so do you really think this is happening in GA and they are getting away with it? Gee Whiz!
GOPG, yeah, you know what documents you need to get the free ID? The same documents you used to need to register to vote! How ridiculous is that?
When did we get photo drivers license? About 1980? So someone who had a license then (just before the photos), and has been voting consistently since way before then, might not have ever had to get a photo ID, but they are still on the roll. All those African-Americans in Atlanta and elsewhere who risked their lives and saw their friends and peers beaten and killed to get the right to vote, and are now in their 80′s, now have to jump through more hoops AGAIN just to keep the same right they have already had?
We can do better than that.
Benevolus –
This is what is required to get the free ID become a voter in Georgia:
A photo identity document or approved non-photo identity document that includes full legal name and date of birth, documentation showing the voter’s date of birth, evidence that the applicant is a registered voter, and documentation showing the applicant’s name and residential address.
They will let you vote with the following: Georgia Driver’s License, even if expired, a valid employee photo ID from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state, a valid U.S. passport ID, a valid U.S. military photo ID, or a valid tribal photo ID.
I think they are being nice with the allowance of an expired drivers license.
What documentation do you think should provided to vote or register to vote? None? Something in crayon perhaps?
There is a difference between an ID to vote and ID to register. We have had to provide those documents to register for many years now, and I have no problem with that. The new ID laws are about having to have the ID to cast a ballot. If there was any evidence that there is some sort of fraud going on that an ID would solve I might feel differently. But at least in Georgia I don’t think there is. There are some states that have “same day registration” and maybe some states that don’t require a photo to register. Those places might need to tighten up their anti-fraud measures a bit, but I think we are fine here without the additional restrictions. Of course it’s too late now. It’s the law. Anyone who was going to be disenfranchised already is.
It just seems like all we have done is add an additional random element to the process. Now the right to vote is dependent on a poll workers opinion of your picture? I’m pretty sure the law does not specify a procedure for a poll worker who challenges an ID, and I haven’t been a poll worker in a while but if they have a procedure for this I am not aware of it. I am tempted to show up in a disguise some day just to test the system.
Benveolus, you did not answer the question: What documentation do you think should provided to vote or register to vote? None? Something in crayon perhaps?
I have no problem with the then-current law- prior to the recent photo ID requirement. to vote.
No. I can challenge your ballot for any number of reasons and force you to vote provisionally. It is my right to do so.
I could “cage” (or ask a party org or campaign to) and you would have to vote provisionally through no fault or legal violation of your own.
Statistically speaking, were you to cast a ballot provisionally, there is only a 60% or so that the ballot would be counted.
So then, according to your logic, as soon as someone writes a book on how to target certain groups using standards that’s when it’s time to reduce the standards in order to accommodate the group heretofore targeted by the guy who wrote the book. This will, in turn, enhance the image of the people who prefer standards and possibly even gain some support from the “lower standard” crowd. Because lower standards means more voters. Awe heck, Republicans should probably distance themselves from those “rule of law” folks anyways. BRILLIANT!
“This will, in turn, enhance the image of the people who prefer standards and possibly even gain some support from the “lower standard” crowd.”
Unless the quest for lower standards is out-lowered by the LOWER lower standard crowd, in which case the crowd formerly known as the higher standard crowd is still outnumbered by the lower lower standard crowd, as well as suffering losses from increases in the “stay at home crowd” and the “they’re both the same” crowd.
Unless the quest for lower standards is out-lowered by the LOWER lower standard crowd
Never overestimate us.
What does this have to do with the Obama census?
This one will probably get voted down, but check out something i just realized:
Can anyone guess what 60% – the percentage of those who are labeled as ‘noncitizens’ by the system Karen Handel is touting that are actually citizens – is, in simplest fraction form?
Bonus points to anyone who can tell us the historic significance of that number.
I’m relatively “progressive” and this is silly. Don’t go too far out on the deep end, please. You might drown.
I’m not alleging any intentional (or even unintentional) connection here in any way, shape, or form.
As someone trained pretty heavily in math, I like to look at numbers, and I’m simply pointing out that it is interesting that 60% was the number that was found here.
Honestly, I would find it interesting ANYTIME 60% was found in a similar situation where some detail of election law/procedure was said to prevent people from voting.
How lovely of Byte to FINALLY admit part of the truth.
There is no such thing as “relatively progressive.” You are a progressive, just as I identified you as one a few days ago to which you simply responded in a personal attack.
Thank you for playing the game of “I’m a centrist, not a progressive” and losing, Loser.
What are you, a stalker? Go bother someone else.
Just pointing out the fact that you are a lying P.O.S., and have been one since you first logged onto this site.
So today is “Angry Bill” day. Check your meds. Something’s off.
Hugs!
Not “anger,” Byte…just a simple presentation of facts.
I know, though, how you were raised by your parents: any time someone told you they caught you in a lie, you were taught that that was wrong…that it hurt your self-esteem and even though you stole a candy bar, the mean ‘ole adult who pointed their finger at you and called you a “thief!” was the BAAAD one, not you. Because you’re just a “victim” of society, right?
You’re a pansy.
You’re so angry that you don’t even recognize it. Sad. Really, please get back on the meds. Your family still loves you.
Hugs!
So Erick “It’s your World, Boss” :
You have a case of a new PP participant’s viewpoints being rudely criticized by a seasoned PP participant. Based on the “+ or -” tally, other readers agree. Namecalling, posting foul language, baiting ought to be rigorously discouraged in the House Rules section.
Is the civility meter broken?
Seems like this sort of chicanery does nothing to advance discussion on any issue. Moreover, it reduces PP credibility and effectiveness as a legitimate issue forum.
Yes.
And I know the bonus question too.
You’re stretching it pretty thin.
I just oppose the HOW here, not the WHAT.
The FACT of the matter though is that Handel broke Federal law by not getting USDOJ pre-clearance before implementing the change.
Like I’ve said a few other times recently, we MUST obey the law during the day job, even as we work to change it with our ‘extra curricular’ activities.
As far as I know, voting is a State issue. And, unless you can provide an example to the contrary, I’m filing “pre-clearance from the DOJ” next to some of that other catchy legalese such as “redact” and “recuse” that Gretta used during the OJ trial.
No disrespect Game Fan, what about the five amendments to the federal constitution covering voting rights?
You can just thank me for the education.
I hope the appeal is won by the State.
GW, the facts are that our voting laws & procedures have increased voter participation, not supressed it in any way. The facts are that Republicans came up with these procedures & more Democrats were able to vote. I can remember in my area when Dems made it extra hard for Reps. to vote. Was I disenfrachised? Nope, I voted anyway.
Record numbers are now voting. (although that’s not saying much when you look at the turnout of registered voters in Iraq & Iran)
You are astounding in your ascertions. The only way “disenfrachisment” will happen is if you don’t want to obey the procedures.
the facts are that our voting laws & procedures have increased voter participation, not supressed it in any way
What you speak of is “coincidence”, not “causation”. Two facts that are not really connected in any logical way.
Byte, more people may have voted because of Obama & their interest in him. The facts are more voted legally with fewer problems.
I happen to think that coincidence & causation are mute when as few of our citizens actually register to vote & then vote.
I think, Bucky, that people with more time than me will refute your phrase “with fewer problems”.
“I voted anyway”.
Classic conservative response. I got mine, to hell with everyone else.
Benevolus, my comment about “I voted anyway” means that in those days my candidates didn’t have a chance locally, they lost, & I voted for them. So, I didn’t get mine.
Bucky,
Since the law has gone into effect we have had some fairly important elections.
These laws are not the cause of the increase in participation.
You conservatives are so quick to claim causality. There is no correlation between voter id and the increase in participation rates.
I didn’t see that post from Byte, but I just punched some numbers and what I found was not so suprising.
There was actually a drop in participation rates (population increase considered) between the mid-term/gubernatorial election in 2002 and that which was held in 2006. 4 percentage points.
I guess you are all so absolutely correct about these laws increasing voting. Not that there is a significant correlation between in this simple model that I crunched in 5 minutes. Doesn’t change the fact that your claim is completely negated though.
I’d like to see this appeal succeed if only to ensure the votes who have the lawful right to vote aren’t diminished by the votes of people who don’t.
The bottom line is this: just because you show up (or brought in a bus and told how to vote) at a polling station shouldn’t mean you’re entitled to a ballot let alone cast it if you aren’t legally allowed to do so.
Unfortunately, the Obama DOJ is reckless in its insistence that states who have the audacity to take steps to ensure that only legal votes are counted are stymied in their efforts because it would make it more difficult for Democrats to win in a fair election.
Actually, it was a Bush Adminstration court that gave the initial order.
Fair enough, I stand corrected on the fact that this is all from the Obama DOJ but the idea that the DOJ or that court shouldn’t be ruling this way still stands.
However, don’t dismiss the fact that the current DOJ is actively pursuing ways to undermine controls to prevent illegal ballots from being cast all in the name of making sure that everybody who wants to vote (legally or not) can do so and have that vote counted.
The DOJ guys are lifelong career guys. Even though they were under the Lame Duck Bush Administration, they saw the writing on the wall regarding the groundswell for Obama’s likely election. Though they were egged on by the Mexican American Defense League and the ACLU to question the process under Bush, they postponed making a decision until after the election to hedge their bets. This is the same nonsense you get with lifers in the US State Department too.
At least we know what Karen Handel is doing instead of call time now.
Democrats and Obama DOJ version of voter suppresion at the polls; these two with night sticks and threats OK OK OK nothing to see here:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/22/document-drop-doj-still-obstructing-justice-in-black-panther-case/
Georgia Republicans requiring ID to vote: BAD BAD BAD
I would love to hear some of you defend this hypocrisy! It will be entertaining.
Democrats have no standing ever again on anything to do with voting until these criminals are prosecuted. Until then it is all hot air!!!!!
I never said Voter ID was a bad thing – in fact, I think it is a very GOOD thing.
My contentions here are simple, and again, relate directly to HOW this was done, not WHAT (as far as general principle) was done:
1) Like it or not, Section 5 of VRA is Federal law. By implementing a change in voting procedure without getting explicit USDOJ approval beforehand, Karen Handel in her duties as Secretary of State violated that law. This is one of those situations where even *I* would more than likely play it EXTREMELY safe rather than sorry.
2) The process she implemented to achieve the noble goal of Voter Verification (NO ONE wants people voting who are not legally eligible) was so flawed that 60% of the people it labeled as ‘noncitizens’ were, in fact, citizens. In other words, it only labeled 40% of the people correctly! Back when I was in school, you had to get 70% of the stuff correct to pass the class!
The verification process Handel implmented was in response to the DOJ demanding that GA implement Federal HAVA mandated verification. Know the truth and it shall set you free.
Perhaps one factor is the DC whores who can’t stand to see the need for a national I.D. (a.k.a. big brother) being undermined by the States. Of course, many people are catching on that there’s nothing “National” about a “National ID”. And there’s some interesting tie-ins here which expose some of the differences between Libertarian factions: There’s the “freedom through centralization” vs. the “freedom through decentralization” crowds.
As I commented on voting-machine controversy here in Tennessee, why shut the back door when the front door is wide open?
Without the voting/elections process sufficiently protected as the sacred thing is, I don’t know what we have in government in this country that can be trusted or counted on.
A couple of the black GA lawmakers I know contacted me about these proof of citizenship/photo ID bills when they were in the legislature, expressing doubts that this verification is really necessary. I told them, “You stand to lose if we don’t have it.” And this is true, for all Americans.
It is comical to hear a Dem speak about election law,considering how the Obama campaign/Acorn blantantly abused the system.
The soul of the standard Democrat is to be as intellectually corrupt as possible, all the while smiling on the outside to show how much they like you and want to “help” you.
I’m for mandatory voting by every citizen no excuses even being in jail or nursing home. Let the tripling average out the errors.
Well, y’all, it’s been real (like Nathan Deal), and I’ll come back to visit sometime. Maybe when some of you aren’t trying to censor my comments into invisibility, ha!
I’ll be in Cobb County and Atlanta in a couple of weeks to visit the kids.
No reputable person wants anyone voting that that is ineligible to vote, but the number and burden the system places on eligible voters ought to be weighed against the numbers of excluded ineligible voters.
Given that my first name was interchanged with my partner’s last name and vice versa when we registered a newly purchased vehicle in February, I’m not at all impressed with the data integrity at the SoS office.
And to read what GeorgiaGOP wrote, you’d think the GOP was so concerned about disenfranchisement that it was the GOP’s idea to make the voter ID free and available in every County in the state.
Clearly as another stated, this is fixing something isn’t broken. The claims this is all about ballot box security and not partisan advantage are undermined by the fact that absentee ballot security was loosened.
Yeah, as ’10 approaches, moderates and independents in parched metro Atlanta gridlock are sure to be impressed the state’s leadership is tackling the tough issues.
http://www.sos.georgia.gov/gaphotoid/default.htm
Voter ID cards ARE free and ARE available in every county in the state. Now give us an exact number of voters it is a burden to, and tell us with a straight face that they can’t vote just because of this law. Are these the same people who were showing up at polls with a water bill to prove their identity?
This law has been passed. If you are talking about fixing something that isn’t broken, why is the DOJ challenging this law?
Why does it have to be an exact number?
Yeah, and Black folks COULD have voted in 1960 if only they could recite the Gettysburg address. It’s not a burden. It’s a necessary qualification.
Or not.
This is not a Jim Crow law passed by the Democrats. They were the ones in favor of segregation, and forcing black people to sit on the back of the bus, and allowing diners (and water fountains) for whites only. If you are going to talk about the 60′s, get it right.
Senate Bill 86 also supported by Eric Johnson requires proof of citizenship at registration time.
This nonsense that efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting are a waste of time is not supported by the facts, where there are documented cases of non-citizens not only registering but voting.
This is a big deal with the Obama shenanigans and the census. Everyone who votes that is not entitled to nullifies a legitimate voter’s voice.
I haven’t seen anything like that in Georgia. Help me out with a Google search string because I am getting nothing but opinions/blogs speculating about it.
When they do something to validate absentee ballots, I’ll take the GOP’s word seriously about this issue. Until then, it’s just about trying to give themselves an edge at the ballot box.
The GOP is serious about this, right? Right? Where’s Eric Johnson and the rest of the fearmongers on absentee ballot validation? (it’s so quiet, I can hear the crickets chirping)
ByteMe
You don’t here some of us running to the defense of the Bush administration or Computerized voting without a paper trail do you? If you’re an average American “Da vote” is all we have. It’s something to take seriously. Some folks simply want integrity all around. So this would make Karen Handel only half right with some folks.
And some folks just want “integrity” to really just mean keeping certain groups from the polls.
Like I said: since absentee ballots are easier opportunities for fraud than actually going to a voting location and claiming to three people that you’re someone else, I’ll believe the GOP is serious when they add rules to absentee ballots that force verification of any ballots submitted.
As the Father of the Common Law tradition, William Blackstone, so famously stated:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.”
This has been a cornerstone of our system since its inception. What everything comes down to on this particular issue is this:
We can not have a system that prevents the honest voters from casting a ballot merely to root out those that are frauds.
The current law regarding the administration of elections in GA has stopped honest citizens from casting their ballots. While it may root out fraud (or even prevent it) the fact that it robs the innocent their right to vote denies this particular government action any form of legitimacy in America.
Turns out that 6% of Americans believe that “Obama was born in Hawaii, but Hawaii is not part of the United States.”
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html
So… even with voter ID those people get to vote too. Something’s wrong with that.
To be fair, at least some of those people could have been over-thinking the question. Geographically, Hawaii is not even on the same continent, after all. Some may have thought that was the very point of the question. Note that they didn’t ask whether the respondents believe Hawaii is a state. For some of those 6% that would be a different question. One of the things a test always tests is the test itself. Or something.
So is Alaska part of the United States?
I wish not.
Dash, I read the info at the link. It was not laid out well, and I am not familiar with that organization. I did not see the original questions as asked. I have no idea what their real agenda is.
Just to prove that you can do almost anything with raw data and spin it to say what you like. I am going to take one part of a sentence you provided and play with it.
You said “Hawaii is not even on the same continent, after all.” That implies that if it is not on the North American continent, that it must be on another. From there, I could issue a statement that Dash Riptide thinks Hawaii is on a continent.
And then I’ll issue a statement that GOPGeorgia is only speaking to the 6% whose thinking processes deviate from the mainstream. Probably on Twitter.
So I dug a bit:
Do you consider Hawaii to be part of the United
States? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If
you’re not sure, press 3.
Yes ……………………………………………………….. 92%
No …………………………………………………………. 5%
Not Sure…………………………………………………. 3%
That’s from North Carolina. They were so stunned at the results that they went and included it in their national poll.
Again, I ask: we’re worried about voter ID, but shouldn’t we be more worried about the ones with IDs but not basic knowledge about their own country?
O.K., seriously,
I let this one slide the first time, but you’ve mentioned it again, so I have to ask:
You do realize that your essentially asking for literacy tests, that generally are assigned to the Jim Crow laws from the 60′s, correct?
Because, frankly, I think you’ll generally find a sympathetic audience here to your premise, but most people that are would be somewhat generally afraid of you going all “Pete Randall” on the rest of us if we tried to make the arguement that someone needed more than a pulse to be eligible to vote.
I’m confused? Did you not get your talking points, or did I not get mine?
I went back to the link and looked again and found the full results of the national poll and the questions asked. I think it was a fairly well ran poll.
I did not see a break down of how many calls were placed into NC, so I will discuss the national numbers.
“PPP conducted a national survey of 909 voters from August 14th to 17th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.3%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and
weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.”
“Q4 Do you consider Hawaii to be part of the United
States? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If
you’re not sure, press 3.
Yes ……………………………………………………….. 90%
No …………………………………………………………. 6%
Not Sure…………………………………………………. 4%”
In other words 10% of 909 callers said Hawaii was either not part of the United States or wasn’t sure. We are talking about 91 people and I am not sure what type of “weighting” was done.
A sample size of 909, should have 99% reliability and a margin of error of .05%
Looking at the wording of the question, I can see how 4% were unsure if they were asking if Hawaii is part of the lower 48. A better question would have been is “Do you consider Hawaii to be a state of the United States?” However, considering that one of the names of the five islands is Hawaii, that could still leave some confused. Is New York a city or a state? Asking if New York is a state could still leave some confused as if the question really meant the city.
Don’t forget the human variable. Some people could get the call, think it’s a silly question and say “yep, Hawaii is on mars,” just to mess with the poll. I will assume that’s why they are giving it +/- 3.3%.
The next question is much more interesting:
Q5 Do you think Barack Obama was born in the
United States? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2.
If you’re not sure, press 3.
Yes ……………………………………………………….. 62%
No …………………………………………………………. 25%
Not Sure…………………………………………………. 14%
(adds up to 101%, could have had better rounding)
Others on PP in different threads have described “birther’s” as conspiracy theorist nut jobs, or lunatics.
What this poll shows is that there are lot more “birther’s” out there than they care to admit.
Did you not get your talking points, or did I not get mine?
Maybe both. I like to think of that as being a “good day”.
My point is that if we’re being honest about the “integrity” of the vote, a basic civics class (and maybe a class on how to turn off the TV without the remote control) should be an educational requirement across the country (both public and private schools included).
What this poll shows is that there are lot more “birther’s” out there than they care to admit.
Interestingly, in another poll run by a different firm, the percentage of “deathers” out there is within the margin of error of the exact same percentage of “birthers”. Coincidence? I think not.
Not only that, but even I was unclear as to when Hawaii became a state without looking it up. I t turns out it was 1959, close enough to Obama’s birth year to maybe cause some people to think that technically he was born into a “territory” or something not quite “The United States”.
Wouldn’t matter. All legal citizens of the territory became citizens of the USA when Hawaii became a state. But that wasn’t even the question asked. The question was whether Hawaii is part of the USA. Some people think it’s not and some are just not sure.
Dash,
Who do you blame then, the test or the testees?
The test has a bias against people who lack common sense. So it’s a wash, basically.
The issue that came up was a ‘legal vote.’ That could be a problem in defining “legal” on this blog.
Not that anyone wants “illegal votes.” But, can’t we agree that many votes are “illegal” and counted every election that have nothing to do with race or citizenship?
Because of Handel’s action, the argument can be made that all votes cast in a system not in full compliance with the Constitution as amended are illegal.
Karen Handel cheapened all the votes and shamed all honest voters. Why make such changes in the legal voting system just before an election except in an attempt to change the outcome of that election.
Judge the actions not only by effect and intention but by timing.
It wasn’t the first day on the job for Karen Handel. And, it wasn’t an unfunded mandate forcing her to do a job on the cheap. Nor, a court ruling. Or, a piece of legislation a thousand pages long being ‘rushed’ through committee. We weren’t being attacked by terrorists or little green men from Mars.
Why couldn’t Handel, if there was a problem, solve that problem in a methodical way without breaking the laws, cheapening honest votes, and stopping honest voters from fully enjoying the benefits of freedom and democracy?
Somebody answer that for me.
I’m not going to defend Handel, but…
There were billions of new voter registrations flooding in all year before the election. There were horror stories about hundreds of millions of fake registrations, at least half of which were supposedly Mexicans and Guatemalans tempting felony convictions so that they could (hopefully) vote to continue living 17 to an apartment.
Clearly some sort of bulk verification was needed. One can presume that whatever had been done in the past wasn’t going to get it done, especially since all the new temps were out of work post-grad diplomates who couldn’t bring themselves to do anything fast, or entry level workers who only knew how to text. Pushing the whole thing off on the DMV must have seemed like a brilliant Hail Mary at the time. Reduce the number of all those new registrants- who were probably actually mostly Obamites, cut the temp labor expense in half, and blame the DMV if it doesn’t work out.
I just wish she would fess up instead of claiming “I do not believe there is anything discriminatory in verifying voter information and citizenship”, as if all she has to do is SAY that’s all that happened to make it so. She’s only interested in the PERCEPTION of integrity instead of ACTUAL integrity.
I’m not going to praise Caesar, only bury him.
Yes, voter registration increased. However, verification was done at the county level before issuing registration cards.
Handel’s illegal extra step wasn’t required by law.
BTW, Handel gave me the shovel and the dirt.
Yeah, I’d love to see the party of personal responsibility demonstrate leadership on this critical issue. That being taking responsibility.
Comments on this entry are closed.