" The pleasant poll worker then informed me that I could only vote in one primary."

What??? It's an outrage!!! Blatant voter suppression!

Um, hate to confuse things with the facts, but voter ID wouldn't do a thing to prevent someone from voting in multiple states (that's voter registration fraud). Better interstate information sharing would help, but hey let's pretend she falsified her identity!

You "right-thinking" folks crack me up.

Russ, I apologize for confusing you with an indefinite article. I've fixed it to help you out.

Well good. We can agree this type of fraud is in no way is addressed by voter id laws. Of course now, "election reform" is so nonspecific, it could mean just about anything.

btw, no one questions that voter registration fraud sometimes occurs (e.g. registering to vote from a business address). That's hardly a justification for polling location barriers to voting. The term "voter fraud" is used by many to intentionally obfuscate the distinction between voter registration irregulaties and actual voter fraud at polling locations.

Of course creating a massive, integrated national voter information repository might not be so well received by many on the right. National Identity Card anyone? I suspect this is where this is all going, happily ushered in by the right.
www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/5-problems-national-id-cards

Russ - If obtaining a free government ID, to which any citizen is entitled, is any kind of a "barrier" to someone voting, then they obviously have much larger issues to begin with. There was a time when I found it ironic that progressives implicitly think racial minorities or elderly individuals are too stupid or feeble to obtain simple identification, but I have come to fully expect such prejudice from your movement.

Deny the reality if you like.
www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voter_id

Every voter should demonstrate that they are who they say they are before voting. That form of proof should not include restrictive documentation requirements like overly burdensome photo ID or redundant proof of citizenship requirements that serve to block millions of eligible American citizens from voting.

Improvements in voting technology and modernization of our voter registration system will both increase efficiency and close the door on mistakes and fraud. Where there are clear policy solutions that resolve concerns about both election integrity and free and fair access to the polls, American citizens should not be subject to costly restrictive documentation requirements that limit access to the polls.

Studies show that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students. Many citizens find it hard to get government photo IDs, because the underlying documentation like birth certificates (the ID one needs to get ID) is often difficult or expensive to come by. At the same time, voter ID policies are far more costly to implement than many assume.

I suppose this only adds understanding to the old political line of "Vote early, and often". Among politicians I have known, they tend to snicker, rather than laugh, at that one. I don't think it is because they have heard it too often.

A politician snickered at an old joke? Must be true!

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-day-impersonation-an-impetus-for-voter-id-laws-a-rarity-data-show/2012/08/11/7002911e-df20-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_story.html

A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.

The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. With 146 million registered voters in the United States, those represent about one for every 15 million prospective voters.

But, hey, let's spend the money anyway. Who's counting?

I didn't realize that the ultra-left-wing Brennan Center for Justice held a factual monopoly on "the reality" of the Voter ID issue. They should be honored that you hold them in as high regard as your other oft-blockquoted infallible "authorities" on everything, Kohn, Deming, and Krugman.

Far from me to accuse them of bias, but I don't see what's so "burdensome" about filling out a form and obtaining a free government ID, nor how this "blocks" any citizen from voting since everyone who applies is entitled to one. Copies of birth certificates are available to all, if that's the only issue. No discussion of how many of those 11% of "eligible voters" who don't hold IDs actually vote or attempt to vote (I'm an "eligible voter" and I do not). Since the Center For Justice is run out of New York University law school, I hope they understand the concept of a neutral law of general applicability. Every law has a disparate impact on some arbitrary group of individuals

Ah, got no facts? Attack the sources. What's funny is that the right constantly claims liberals rely on emotional arguments. As for "neutral law of general applicability," poll taxes would fall under that and have been found unconstitutional. Clearly that's not the only standard that must be applied.

btw, copies of my birth certificate are not available. I was born in a somewhat remote place whose records building burned to the ground in the 1970s if I remember correctly. Not sure what I'd do if I lost the copies I have.

Oh, great. Now you guys are going to be convinced I was born in Kenya, right?

Hey Russ,

No response to Dan's suggestion that the left is wearing its prejudice on its sleeve but suggesting minorities and the elderly are incapable of performing such a minor task as getting a voter ID? If anyone suggested they were incapable of anything else, you liberals would screaming from the rooftops but because it's a voter ID and you're left leaning, it's OK?

Russ - I have exactly as much in the way of facts as your cited "authority" has. They assert that obtaining a free government ID is burdensome. I assert that it is not. I do make several logical arguments, which you and your blockquote do little to address.

Max - It goes like this:

Racism to "protect" or advantage racial minorities: OK
Racism to disadvantage racial minorities: Not OK

And treating everyone equally is the most vile racism of all.

I believe a voter ID should be issued at registration and citizenship must be proven at registration-no one is getting a passport without proof of citizenship-and if none of this is necessary to exercise my right to vote,then why should I have to provide identity to buy a gun?I'm sure Russ has some smart answer ready.And BTW Russ,don't lose your copies.Life isn't always simple.

Dan do you ever consider how pompous you sound in your posts?

Sammy - Count yourself lucky you found the one blog on the planet that doesn't ban obvious trolls. Why you even bother here is beyond anyone's understanding.

"I believe a voter ID should be issued at registration and citizenship must be proven at registration"

Thank you! Add that second item to the list of necessary election reforms - along with switching the completion of mail-in ballots from pencils to pens.

"...along with switching the completion of mail-in ballots from pencils to pens."

Still waiting on our local science expert's explanation of the "pen only" optical scanner. How do I get one of those?

"I have exactly as much in the way of facts as your cited 'authority' has."

Yes, of course it's simple to get copies of your birth certificate because you say so. Never mind that I personally can't get one. I probably could work that out with a few thousand bucks and an attorney. No problem, right?

Here's the stories of some more people who no longer have the right to vote...
www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec12/pennsylvania_07-24.html

RAY SUAREZ: Sixty-year-old Wilola Lee of Philadelphia says she's voted in almost every presidential election since the '70s. She's a retired employee of the city's board of education who spent several years working at her local polling station.

But, in November, under the voter identification law passed in Pennsylvania, Lee may not be able to cast a ballot. The new law requires all eligible voters to have a state-approved form of identification issued by PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. And the requirements for approval are strict.

Wilola Lee already has a number of identification cards.

WILOLA LEE, Pennsylvania voter: This is the only I.D. that I really have to identify myself, and it's the Social Security card. Then I have the personal Pennsylvania I.D. card.

RAY SUAREZ: But Lee doesn't have one document required by the law to get a state-issued I.D., her original birth certificate. It was destroyed in a fire.

WILOLA LEE: I have been trying to get my birth certificate for the past 10 years, over 10 years. So I did send to Georgia, where I was born at, in order to obtain a birth certificate. But they sent me a delayed birth certificate without a seal on it, and come to find out it's just only an application.

RAY SUAREZ: Lee is not alone. The state's most recent numbers show more than 750,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania lack the identification required to vote under the new law.

Destroyed in a fire. Sound familiar? But, hey, who cares if the government denies legitimate voters the right to vote so long as they take those rights fair and square, right?

Russ - If we as a nation can't design a computer that reads pen, it baffles me how we are broadcasting from a rover on Mars. Your objection looks ridiculous on its face. In other words, you are just trying to find problems, and my guess is you're purposely focusing on minute technical details with which we are not directly familiar to try to bill yourself as some sort of broader "voting" authority, which you aren't.

Russ - Would you retract your objections if Rhode Island passed a more flexible law that addressed these specific issues by allowing any government-approved ID card or made ID cards more easily available? No, of course you wouldn't, because that's not really the basis of your objection in the first place. You're just providing another example of the progressive modus operandi: identify the outcome desired and scrape together whatever flimsy justifications are required to achieve that outcome without any regard to maintaining a principled position.

"If we as a nation can't design a computer that reads pen, it baffles me how we are broadcasting from a rover on Mars."

I don't think one needs to be a voting expert to understand this stuff. But I am an engineer and I do make a living working with data. I've even worked with optical scanning devices, bar codes, etc.

Funny how you get all focused on proof when it's someone's right to vote at issue, but Monique proposes unicorn dust as a solution and it's A-OK with you. Who cares if the technology exists?

"Would you retract your objections if Rhode Island passed a more flexible law that addressed these specific issues by allowing any government-approved ID card or made ID cards more easily available?"

You don't even know the law. RI "identification" requirements are a joke (and of questionable value). Meanwhile there are some who will still have difficulty and will have to cast provisional (and hope their signature matches) or absentee ballots.
sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/card/

"Sammy - Count yourself lucky you found the one blog on the planet that doesn't ban obvious trolls."

LOL, he reposts your comment and you call him a troll.

Sammy isn't a troll because he reposted my comment. He's a troll because he cut and pastes off-topic information about random Republican individuals from internet sites in thread after thread ad nauseum to distract and drag down discussion.

Russ,

If you are going to put yourself out there as an expert in various things you might want to actually provide some info, possibly educate some people, maybe try to see the other side of the argument and lose the condescending tone. For example...

"But I am an engineer and I do make a living working with data. I've even worked with optical scanning devices, bar codes, etc."

Working in IT does not make you an engineer and it's not engineering.

It's a skill and a profession and you may have worked very hard to get where you are, but as an actual engineer, I have to disagree.

"Working in IT does not make you an engineer and it's not engineering."

Sheesh, can't win over here. I never said it does (my engineering degree on the other hand). If you're one of those "you have to join my professional society to call yourself an engineer," you can keep it to yourself as far as I'm concerned.

btw nothing at all condescending about your own comments and notably nothing there that actually adds to the discussion of voter ID, voter registration fraud, or security of absentee ballots. Note - the easiest fix would be to allow voters to check that their votes were accurately recorded. Many progressives would support that although there are concerns with privacy. Monique's pen-only scanner though? Not so sure about that one.

Russ - OK. You have an engineering degree. My mistaken assumption. I've been around far too many IT folks who throw around the "engineer" title.

As to the discussion at hand...my take on Monique's comment re: pencil vs pen, pencil can be erased. She was talking about mail-in ballots. Not sure why you were focused on that. That's the tone I was referring to.

No offense taken.

Yeah, as for tone, I'm not a big fan of global warming deniers (especially those who challenge me to "prove" physical theories -- I've quoted Hawkings here before on why that's ridiculous).

The only scanners I know of that could ignore pencil involve using special ink, for instance metal ink used in printing checks. I think it's simply unworkable, expensive, confusing and sure to invalidate many legitimate votes in the name of the ballot fraud snipe hunt. I previously asked the question over here...
www.anchorrising.com/barnacles/014732.html

I suppose we could just hand count all those ballots, but that's slow, inaccurate, and of course opens up a whole new avenue for conservatives to claim fraud. Or I suppose we could require voters to seal the ballots and sign across the seal. But again you're likely to invalidate lots of legitimate votes when people don't follow the instructions.

I feel like if she is going to keep bringing it up like "why hasn't anyone already thought of this," she should at least consider whether it's feasible and cost effective, no?

"If we as a nation can't design a computer that reads pen, "

Er, we have. That's how regular ballots cast in person at a polling place are tabulated. Why aren't we using that technology for the mail-in ballots?

"Er, we have. That's how regular ballots cast in person at a polling place are tabulated."

You're mistaken about that. That's just an optical scanner, which "looks" using a photosensor for any marks connecting the lines on the ballot. The scanner used in Rhode Island (Optech Eagle) reads marks made with an optical scan marking pen or with (drumroll please)... a #2 pencil.

Here's the description of the scanner for an equipment rental site...
www.electionsource.com/equipmentrental.html