1. Don't state elections boards and secretaries of state handle security for voting machines? Most elections aren't federal in the first place. If they're eliminating a redundant agency that seems smart. The machines can definitely be hacked, but they're often not networked so hacking them en masse is much more difficult. However, knowing that they were hacked isn't the same as hacking prevention. 2. Voting rolls shouldn't have inaccurate registration. The DOJ asked them how they're purging them. 3. He asked for public information. Military status is certainly public, if not often mixed in with voter registration. And since it's one of the often used reasons for absentee ballots, it would make sense to learn about it if they're going to try to make it harder to use absentee ballots unnecessarily. 4. They put a guy on the commission the author doesn't like politically. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Specifically the idea of voter id laws do not bother me, but this person is taking the idea of voter id laws as a systematic attack on voting rights. This seems like an unprecedented attack on voting rights may be a bit of a stretch. Especially, since again, most voting is local and statewide, and not federal. As always, the federal government has much too much power over us.
Having had to deal with trying to get friends registered to vote in KS, I do have problems with voter id laws in the Kobach style. Needing a birth certificate sounds like a low bar, until you encounter someone who doesn't have one. Then it is a fucking pain. - They have to pay to get one. - They have to know how to get one. - They have to have the information to get one. - They have to plan ahead of time to get one. - They have to believe in the system enough to jump through all of the hoops above. I'm pretty happy that I've gotten several friends to register and then go vote. But, I've never done it with any of my friends who didn't have a birth certificate on hand. It disproportionately disadvantages people who are already disillusioned with and poorly served by our government. It prevents them from having a voice on the local level (people w/o citizenship proof can still vote federally in KS), where their voice will have the biggest impact. Interesting to note: my friends without birth certificates can still register to vote federally in Kansas. But the fact that they won't be trusted to vote locally was a big enough red flag to them that they've decided not to vote at all. Kobach isn't doing himself any favors in his attempts to dispel this view. Which, interesting to note, isn't the same as asking for information that his own department is willing to provide. I've been bitten by this. Having done everything right, only to be turned away from the polls? It sucks. I'm now paranoid about checking every week to make sure I'm still registered in the run up to elections.4. They put a guy on the commission the author doesn't like politically. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Specifically the idea of voter id laws do not bother me, but this person is taking the idea of voter id laws as a systematic attack on voting rights.
but this person is taking the idea of voter id laws as a systematic attack on voting rights.
He asked for public information.
How would Kobach use this data? Look at his efforts in Kansas. His Interstate Crosscheck program compares registration lists among states to search for double voting, but because it uses very rudimentary data—only voters’ first and last names and date of birth—it generates thousands of false matches, leading to misleading claims about the prevalence of double voting that results in legitimate voters being removed from the rolls.
That would be bad to get purged accidentally. However to implement a proper system to match more than names seems to be possible and would require similar information to what was requested in the article. Last four of a social in particular would he pretty discriminating. No system is perfect and moreover I don't believe that voter fraud is a problem worth fixing due to the increased cost and low instance of fraud. However, the arguments of getting an ID being too difficult don't sit well with me. A YouTube video I liked recently was a couple people walking around NYC asking black people what they thought of that argument that forcing a driver's license/ID requirement meant to disenfranchise black voters. The responses were mostly, I have an ID, why would that be hard because I'm black? Maintaining ownership of a birth certificate is just part of being an adult. You use it often. And I know they go missing sometimes, but it's kind of something you just have to fix, regardless of your intent to vote. I vote every time, local, state, federal. Voting is important to me. So I do the things that need to be done to ensure that I can go vote. I don't think an ID is a high bar at all. But again, I don't think having an ID is necessary or a good use of resources due to the fact that voter fraud is largely made up.
Kobach already had that at the state level when I got purged. See above where he's declining to share the last four with the commission. He may not be (able to be) using it in Crosscheck for legal reasons, but he's been in power for a good while now. His failure to implement a better system in that time is damning enough. Maybe I'm just floating through life on luck, but you use yours often? Soc Sec card, I'll agree with, but birth certificate? The only time I can recall I've had to use mine to function in society in the past decade was to get a new Soc Sec card issued after running the old one through the washer. You know who's just learning to adult? College students, which (surprisingly enough) Kansas has a fair amount of. Can't think of a reason that might be an issue in such a red state. Oh, wait. CHANG: And your paper did an analysis of who these people were. What groups were disproportionately affected by this law? LOWRY: People under 30, a cluster also in urban areas, so Wichita, the state's largest city, college towns like Lawrence, Kan., where the University of Kansas is, which makes sense because you might have a voting drive on campus, not every freshman is walking around with their birth certificate in their wallet. For context, Douglas county (which is home to Lawrence) voted 29.7% for Trump in the general. Sanders got a smidge north of 82% of caucus goers earlier in the year. It is a little to the left of the nation, let alone the state. It may be that Kobach is generally concerned about election validity, but it is easy to be skeptical about how he's gone about this. There is a difference between providing ID, and providing proof of citizenship. KS directly requires the latter to get your foot into the electoral process. They're worried about non-citizens voting, but instead of the state assuming the burden of proving the integrity of their elections, they took that burden and placed it onto first time voters. Worth noting that all this is just to get registered. We also have to show ID at a polling place. ___________________________ It takes me a really long time to compose my thoughts. I've been typing away for over an hour now: I started pretty much when I saw you posted your reply. I feel my tone here might fairly be described as 'angry', but I'm kinda strung for time so I'm not gonna go back and edit it too much. I'm angry at the situation, not you. You're cool.That would be bad to get purged accidentally. However to implement a proper system to match more than names seems to be possible and would require similar information to what was requested in the article. Last four of a social in particular would he pretty discriminating.
Maintaining ownership of a birth certificate is just part of being an adult. You use it often. And I know they go missing sometimes, but it's kind of something you just have to fix, regardless of your intent to vote.
BRYAN LOWRY: So in 2014, when we had the last gubernatorial election, there were more than 20,000 people who were in a suspended status. So those were people who could have possibly cast their ballots in the gubernatorial election but were unable to. And when you think about the governor's race being decided by a little bit more than 30,000 votes, that's pretty significant.
However, the arguments of getting an ID being too difficult don't sit well with me.
The court noted the "magnitude of harm" caused by 18,372 applicants at motor vehicle offices who were denied registration due to the state's proof-of-citizenship law.
HACKTYUALLY... maintaining ownership of a birth certificate is just part of being a young to middle aged urban adult. Rural folks? Older rural folks? Black older rural folks? Not so much. Obligatory NPR transcript I just tried to find an account I read one time of an older black lady from the rural south trying to get an ID when she'd been born in her childhood home and never obtained a birth cert. I couldn't. I don't even remember the source. Coulda been here. But in looking I did find an interesting paper suggesting that not only was that account not special per se, but actually pretty common for folks of a certain age. I'm posting it separately for you to peruse. TL:DR; not everybody has a birth certificate, and it's not their fault, and painting their lack of ownership as somehow irresponsible or not "grown up" is misguided. Even discounting the whole birth certificate issue, getting an ID isn't necessarily the easiest thing in the world. Oh god in the two seconds I took to give you some evidence I found this other article looky har Bottom line: ID laws absolutely tilt the scales against certain populations. Not populations that you might readily identify in YouTube videos polling youth in NYC.A YouTube view I liked recently was a couple people walking around NYC asking black people what they thought of that argument that forcing a driver's license/ID requirement meant to disenfranchise black voters. The responses were mostly, I have an ID, why would that be hard because I'm black? Maintaining ownership of a birth certificate is just part of being an adult.
What makes you think that poor rural black folks vote Republican also read the links I posted in my above reply
follow-up: what beyond a YouTube straw poll informs your understanding of the logistical difficulties faced by those currently lacking ID Did you read the links
I read the links. While the anecdotal evidence of people who have trouble getting IDs is there, they conflate a couple of things. especially the difference between having an ID and having a driver's license. To this point, they examine the case of 'who drives' for a good portion of the NPR article as if that answers the question of who would be disenfranchised by these ID laws, but from Ballotopedia: As of June 6, 2017, 33 states had enacted voter identification requirements. A total of 18 states required voters to present photo identification, while 15 accepted other forms of identification. So to imply 'who drives' is important is roughly false. And I like NPR, I'm just saying that this report is off in that regard. Moreover, they never really answer the questions that they set out to answer: Who doesn't have IDs and why? I would like a rough number of how many people are actually being disenfranchised from voting here. If it's millions in a state, that's not a cost worth any benefit, but if it's a hundred per state you can start to argue for or against it. And again, I think voter ID laws are stupid wastes of time and money meant to address a problem that doesn't exist en masse in voter fraud. But I don't agree that getting an ID of some sort should be considered an unbearable burden. In Missouri, for example, as long as you are a registered voter, you can just bring in your registration with your name and address on it. I just brought that in, even though I had my ID on me. That kind of ID doesn't seem burdensome.