Just when you thought voting rights may be returning to normal in Ohio, ACORN is here to save the day….again.
You all remember our good buddy Thug Thizzle from the ’08 election that brought 3BP notoriety on the Laura Ingraham show. Well, it seems Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State, isn't slowing down and wants to make it easier for him to vote in ’10.
New legislation has been introduced by Ohio Reps. Dan Stewart and Tracy that creates obscene opportunities for voter fraud statewide. The bill, supported by Brunner, creates new and dangerous definitions of what would serve as valid identification at the polling place. That language is cut and pasted here:
(BB) "Identification" means either of the following: 254Let's spell out exactly what this means....
(1) A current and valid photo identification; 255
(2) Any two items that meet all of the following criteria: 256
(a) The item lists the elector's name in a manner that 257
substantially conforms to the elector's name in the statewide 258
voter registration database. 259
(b) The item was issued by any of the following sources:
260 (i) A nonprofit organization;
261 (ii) An institution;
262 (iii) A business;
or 263 (iv) A government entity. 264
(c) The item is current and valid. 265
If I own Heavy’s Body Shop and Rib Shack, I can issue an ID to Thug Thizzle and the State of Ohio would accept it during voter verification. This would also apply to ACORN, the Church that your grandma goes to, the local SEIU, election committees and just about any organization that has the ability to print an ID.
Insult to injury is also included in this glorious piece of obnoxiously stupid legislation by way of threatening poll judges who dare to question a voter. If a poll judge makes a challenge without having proof that fraud is occurring, that judge is open to a misdemeanor charge.
So here’s what Brunner wants to see play out: Thug Thizzle finds out that Jeremy Jiraffe is a registered voter (by going to the county Board of Elections and requesting a list of registered voters). He is then issued a couple of IDs by an organization(read: ACORN) that says he is in fact Jeremy Jiraffe. Thug T then proceeds to the polling place and asks for Jeremy J’s ballot. The poll judge thinks that Thug T isn’t really Jeremy J, but has no concrete evidence. The poll judge calls for a challenge, has no concrete evidence and is thus charged with a misdemeanor. Thug T’s vote as Jeremy J stands and Jeremy J has lost his constitutional right to vote.
As Republicans have learned, it is truly amazing what some people will do when they feel they can take advantage of their office. Apparently now it's the Democrat's turn, but this time it affects every Ohioan's right to vote.
Shame on Jennifer Brunner, Dan Stewart and Tracy Heard.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. This bill requires TWO diffferent pieces of non-photo ID, and the pollworkers still have to check the signature of the voter against the official voter rolls. That's a stronger voter identification law than Ohio currently has.
ReplyDeleteChanges to the challenge law protect honest voters from politically motivated challenges. In your "scenario," the pollworker would have every right to challenge the voter.
Last, but not least, the racism dripping from the post should come as a shock. Sadly, it's the status quo now.
A little reading comprehension can be dangerous, too.
ReplyDeleteJohnny Utah DID say it required TWO different pieces of NON-photo ID.
If you're comfortable with a 84 year old poll worker's interpretation of a signature as the only stop-gap between a real vote and fraud, be my guest...but I'm pretty sure many will buy what you're selling.
As for the laughable charge of racism, I imagine you're referring to Thug Thizzle. I recommend you click on the linked story in the post before you start throwing such serious charges around. But I'll make it easy and sum it up for you: Thug Thizzle is what the interviewee made up, not us.
The most dangerous thing about "a little knowledge" is when that is all you have, yet you believe you have more.
ReplyDeleteHere, Anon, is where you are off base.
1. If you read the bill, the challenge portion is written as follows:
Sec. 3599.191. (A) No judge of elections shall do either of
the following:
(1) Challenge an elector's right to vote under section
3509.07 or 3513.19 of the Revised Code unless the judge of
elections knows or reasonably believes that the challenged elector
is not qualified and entitled to vote;
You will notice that the phrase "reasonably believes" is the baseline. However, when you read the rest of the bill, "reasonably believes" is never defined. If you were a poll judge and felt like this language protected you to make a challenge-you are either really brave or really stupid.
Next,
2. The two pieces of ID argument is tired. DJ is right-I did say that there needed to be 2, but besides that point, there is still the little issue of WHO IS ABLE TO ISSUE A VALID ID!
If someone is going to get one ID issued by an ACORN or a church, why wouldn't they get another from another organization. Two fake ID's are still as shady as one fake ID.
Finally,
3. The "signature has to match" argument. Well, in a perfect world, this would be a deterrent. However, in the real world, people may have a "broken" arm or a "broken" finger.
This actually occurred in the last election-where someone who had a cast still had to sign their name. How is that signature going to match?
Once again, if someone is motivated enough to commit vote fraud, I'm pretty certain that they'll be ok with lying about a broken appendage.
So there you go Anon. If a little knowledge is dangerous, then a lot of knowledge just cleared it up for you. There are more bad things in this bill and I'd love to get into them, but right now, we'll leave it at this. If you think I'm off, please let me know and we'll figure this out together...after all, this is Ohio's future that we're talking about here.
In the majority of states, signature is still the hallmark of voter identification.
ReplyDeleteVoter identification only deters the least likely type of voter fraud, which is voter impersonation. It does so no better than signature verification. For the other types, the registration system works very well, just ask Republican or Democratic board of elections people.
As for challenges, reasonable belief has been well-defined in the courts, as has knowledge. Do you really think poll workers should be able to challenge any voter for any reason? That is a recipe for intimidation and fraud.
Apparently, Anon has dropped the ridiculous racism charge without an apology.
ReplyDeleteWhat a shocker.