U.S. Supreme Court set to weigh Republican-backed voting restrictions

[webfact]

U.S. Supreme Court set to weigh Republican-backed voting restrictions

By Andrew Chung

 

FILE PHOTO: A police officer is seen in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S., April 15, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - Fresh off an election in which former President Donald Trump made false claims of fraud, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to ponder the legality of a restriction on early voting in Arizona that his fellow Republicans argued was needed to combat fraud.

 

The Republican-backed law, spurred in part by a video purportedly showing voter fraud that courts later deemed misleading, made it a crime to provide another person's completed early ballot to election officials, with the exception of family members or caregivers.

 

Community activists sometimes engage in ballot collection to facilitate voting and increase voter turnout. Ballot collection is legal in most states, with varying limitations. Republican critics call the practice "ballot harvesting."

 

Supreme Court arguments over the 2016 ban and another Arizona voting restriction - both ruled unlawful by a lower court - are scheduled for next Tuesday, with a decision due by the end of June. A broad ruling by high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, endorsing the restrictions could further weaken the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal law that barred racial discrimination in voting, by making it harder to prove violations.

 

The video, taken from security camera footage, shows a man carrying a box of ballots into a Maricopa County Elections Department office. It was posted on a blog in 2014 by A.J. LaFaro, the Republican Party chairman at the time in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

 

LaFaro's post questioned whether the man was a U.S. citizen and called him a "violent thug" who was "stuffing the ballot box as I watched in amazement." A judge later called the blog post "racially charged" and concluded that the footage showed no illegal activity. The man seen in the video filed an unsuccessful defamation suit against LaFaro.

 

Republican-governed states including Arizona have imposed a variety of voting restrictions in recent years. In the aftermath of Trump's baseless claims of fraud, further curbs on voting are being pursued in 33 states following his Nov. 3 loss to Democrat Joe Biden in an election that drew record turnout, according to New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice.

 

'THE MAIN TOOL'

At issue in the Supreme Court case is the Voting Rights Act's Section 2, which bans any rule that results in voting discrimination "on account of race or color." The court in 2013 gutted another section of the statute that determined which states with a history of racial discrimination needed federal approval to change voting laws.

 

Weakening Section 2 would eliminate "the main tool we have left now to protect voters against racial discrimination," said Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program.

 

"If there's one thing that the election and the insurrection showed it's that not everyone buys into the idea of free, fair and accessible elections," Pérez added, referring to a pro-Trump mob's Jan. 6 rampage at the U.S. Capitol.

 

The Supreme Court case also involves a longstanding Arizona policy that discards ballots cast in-person at a precinct other than the one to which a voter has been assigned. In some places, voters' precincts are not the closest one to their home.

 

The case pits Arizona's Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Arizona Republican Party against the Democratic National Committee and the Arizona Democratic Party, which sued over the restrictions. Arizona's Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has backed the challenge.

 

The two sides differ sharply over whether genuine voter fraud must be documented to justify ballot restrictions.

 

"The notion that voter fraud must be proved in order to enact regulations of elections is not established in the law," said Republican election lawyer Jason Torchinsky, who filed a brief backing Brnovich. "There are tons of areas where legislatures legislate without proving that some kind of fraud or crime has occurred."

 

Jessica Ring Amunson, an attorney who represents Hobbs, said courts should take false fraud claims into account when evaluating the legality of voting restrictions.

 

Legislatures often justify such restrictions as necessary to tackle fraud and increase voter confidence, but "simultaneously they're spreading baseless claims of voter fraud when none exists, and that is the very thing that is leading to people losing confidence in elections," she added.

 

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found Arizona's restrictions unlawful, though they remained in effect for the Nov. 3 election. It ruled that the restrictions disproportionately burdened Black, Hispanic and Native American voters and violated the Voting Rights Act.

 

The 9th Circuit also found that "false, race-based claims of ballot collection fraud" were used to convince Arizona legislators to enact that restriction with discriminatory intent, violating the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on denying voting rights based on race.

 

U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes in 2018 faulted Arizona's legislature for its "misinformed belief that ballot collection fraud was occurring," but upheld the voting restrictions. The 9th Circuit last year overturned that ruling.

 

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-25

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Tug]

The republican desperation really shows I sincerely hope it’s thrown out of court

[Chomper Higgot]

The Republicans are working hard to restrict voting rights while Democrats are working on the ‘The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act’.

 

Go figure, before you vote.

 

 

[Roadman]

“A broad ruling by high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, ”

Its time the US stopped all the bull <deleted> and call it what it is...it’s not conservatism....conservative meaning to protect or uphold the status quo.  In a country where slavery was the status quo and blacks being only worth 3/5ths of a whitey is the status quo then being conservative is pure straight out racism against black Americans. And nowhere is that more obvious than what the RepubliKKKlan controlled states like Georgia are this week doing pushing through new statues to limit the Black vote outcome and undermine the great work that the likes of Stacey Abrams have done to try and stop the racism at Georgia State level. 
Americans claim the US is a shinning light of democracy. Jeez get your heads our of where the sun don’t shine. Your corrupt and racist country voting and governance system sits deservedly at a lowly number 25 in the world for democracy rating. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Roadman

[Jonnapat]

Surely voter suppression, gerrymandering and the Republican party go hand in hand.. Some democracy. 

[Thingamabob]

Probably nothing wrong, but the video looked really bad.

[pkspeaker]

because no real democracy uses such shoody election practices, nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker found this to be prone to fraud.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

because no real democracy uses such shoody election practices, nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker found this to be prone to fraud.

The reality of what the 2005 Commission found and recommended doesn't come close to matching your simplistic representation of their findings.

Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots. 

However, the Carter-Baker Commission found that where safeguards for ballot integrity are in place – for example in Oregon, where the entire state has voted by mail since 1998 – there was little evidence of voter fraud. The commission’s main recommendations on vote-by-mail and absentee voting were to increase research on vote-by-mail (and early voting) and to eliminate the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots. 

https://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/2020/united-states-050620.html

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by placeholder

[Solinvictus]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

eliminate the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots. 

After reading the thread, I think some of you can agree one a few things possibly. Including the need for more transparency along with disallowing parties/candidates to solely handle the votes alone.

 

[Solinvictus]

4 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Surely voter suppression, gerrymandering and the Republican party go hand in hand.. Some democracy. 

Yeah but it seems many Americans are just fine or unaware of this. Really hoping a third party will grow.

[Scott]

A post with a link to the BKK post has been removed.  We are not allowed to post from the Bangkok Post.  That's their rule, not ours.

 

Edit:  Please note, this topic is NOT about Thai elections. 

 

[Sujo]

16 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

because no real democracy uses such shoody election practices, nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker found this to be prone to fraud.

Whats shoddy about it. Has there been any issues?

[Eric Loh]

 

First, all 50 states have certified the legitimacy and accuracy of their election results. Thirty of our 50 states have Republican-controlled legislatures and 27 have Republican governors. That means that Republicans in each of these states found no evidence of widespread fraud. 

 

Second, Trump and his allies have filed 62 lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the legitimacy of the election. None of these, including both cases filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in a decision overturning the outcome of the vote in any state. The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in the six pivotal states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Republicans control the legislatures in five of these six states, and it’s these legislatures that make and monitor the voting laws in their states. 

 

Third, Trump-appointed Republican Attorney General William Barr stated that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. 

 

Recounts of ballots in Georgia (two, including one by hand count) and Wisconsinconfirmed that Trump lost and Joe Biden won.

 

Finally, Biden won the popular vote by more than 7 million. 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[Blue Muton]

How can anybody be so thick that after three months of having the facts explained to them, they still fail to understand the simple truths of the matter?

 

Trump stupidly (stupidly because there's a pandemic) told his voters not to use mail in votes. They didn't. They voted in person, on the day. That's why he had a lead when those votes were counted.

 

Biden, more intelligently and compassionately told his voters to use mail in ballots. They did. Those votes were counted and declared later.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by onthedarkside
flame comments and quote of hidden post removed

[Jingthing]

On 2/26/2021 at 2:30 PM, Blue Muton said:

 

How can anybody be so thick that after three months of having the facts explained to them, they still fail to understand the simple truths of the matter?

 

Trump stupidly (stupidly because there's a pandemic) told his voters not to use mail in votes. They didn't. They voted in person, on the day. That's why he had a lead when those votes were counted.

 

Biden, more intelligently and compassionately told his voters to use mail in ballots. They did. Those votes were counted and declared later.

 

 

According to recent polls a healthy majority of Republicans are still that thick. The ex guy may be out of office but the damage he created is far from over. President Biden is facing challenges of historic FDR / Abe Lincoln levels. 

[pkspeaker]

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

Trump "calling them off" - what a complete distortion of the truth, he's the one who sent them in.

My understanding of the situation was that once they were in the capitol building, Trump pleaded with them to leave. Once in they could have just done a mass 'die-in' and chained themselves together like the 'lefties' do and start making demands, they were either unwilling or too unorganized to do that or they were listening to Trump. Next time they won't be so rudderless and disorganized.  If the regime in the USA doesn't fix it's screwed up election processes and start delivering legitimate elections to the standard they used to have, the capitol will get another mob of 'insurrectionists'.  Just like the red-shirts did here, the second time they came they were much more organized and did the big 2010 central Bangkok takeover. 

 

It's an easy fix- 1)no unsolicited mail-in ballots; 2)voting machines required to print a paper receipt.

 

[Blue Muton]

On 2/26/2021 at 4:10 PM, pkspeaker said:

My understanding of the situation was that once they were in the capitol building, Trump pleaded with them to leave. Once in they could have just done a mass 'die-in' and chained themselves together like the 'lefties' do and start making demands, they were either unwilling or too unorganized to do that or they were listening to Trump. Next time they won't be so rudderless and disorganized.  If the regime in the USA doesn't fix it's screwed up election processes and start delivering legitimate elections to the standard they used to have, the capitol will get another mob of 'insurrectionists'.  Just like the red-shirts did here, the second time they came they were much more organized and did the big 2010 central Bangkok takeover. 

 

It's an easy fix- 1)no unsolicited mail-in ballots; 2)voting machines required to print a paper receipt.

 

Stop spreading misinformation!

 

The 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history. 

 

Fact.

 

Official.

 

If you don't like what you would portray as "left wing" MSM, here's a link to Donald's (at the time) fave channel Fox news: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-election-secure-history-federal-security

 

Seriously, at least try to rise above the lies and poisoned agenda.

 

Don't believe everything Trump says or everything you see on Twitter...

 

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by onthedarkside
flame comment removed

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

My understanding of the situation was that once they were in the capitol building, Trump pleaded with them to leave. Once in they could have just done a mass 'die-in' and chained themselves together like the 'lefties' do and start making demands, they were either unwilling or too unorganized to do that or they were listening to Trump. Next time they won't be so rudderless and disorganized.  If the regime in the USA doesn't fix it's screwed up election processes and start delivering legitimate elections to the standard they used to have, the capitol will get another mob of 'insurrectionists'.  Just like the red-shirts did here, the second time they came they were much more organized and did the big 2010 central Bangkok takeover. 

 

It's an easy fix- 1)no unsolicited mail-in ballots; 2)voting machines required to print a paper receipt.

 

It was about 2 hours into their stay in the capitol building. And he didn't plead. We do know that he was advised of Mike Pence's evacuation right after it happened and did nothing.

[sirineou]

The truth of the mater is that the demographics  in America favor the Democrats, The only way republicans can maintain power is by preventing democrats from voting. This can only delay the inevitable death of the republican party as they are forced to more and more  pander to the lunatic far right fringe  for votes. 

If the Supreme Court fails to do it's constitutional duty, its numbers will be expanded to bring back reasonable balance.

It is as simple as that. 

[bendejo]

On 2/24/2021 at 9:52 PM, Roadman said:

In a country where slavery was the status quo and blacks being only worth 3/5ths of a whitey is the status quo then being conservative is pure straight out racism against black Americans.

 

When the Republicans call themselves the party that freed the slaves bear in mind they are the ones who came up with this 3/5ths nonsense and all the ugly discrimination measures afterwards, so heinous in that they were secondary to only slavery itself.  They should have just set the people free and let them figure out a way to make a life for themselves, like the European immigrants who were arriving in the US with only the clothes on their backs.

 

That Clarence Thomas, something's wrong with that guy...

 

 

[mtls2005]

Might as well just strike down the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and while you're there, toss that 15th Amendment in the bin.

 

 

[Scott]

Post with a trolling meme removed.  It's a discussion forum.

 

[Thomas J]

This should be pretty simple but it is not.  In many states you don't have to show any ID in order to vote.  In others you do.  Given that voting into office is one of the most important actions a citizen can perform it seems only reasonable that a person be 1. Required to be registered  2. Be required to show up at the polls in order to vote 3. Present ID proving the identity of the person voting establishing that the voter is really the registered person.  There is no reason in today's world that ID cards can not be provided at no cost to people.  

With mail in voting, I can not envision a system that is more vulnerable to fraud.  You have the IRS who sent more than 1 million covid relief checks to dead people let alone the number that went to those not eligible yet we are to believe that somehow the state governments sent mail in ballots ONLY TO ELIGIBLE VOTERS.  Next, there is no way of establishing that the person who returned the ballot was actually the registered voter.  There are some handwriting comparison programs but they are far from foolproof.  Lastly, there is no way of establishing that even if the person validly received the ballot and returned the ballot that there was not some inducement to vote for or against a specific candidate.  It would be far to easy for an organized group to submit and receive ballots on behalf of other people and then coerce them with cigarettes, liquor, money or drugs.  Does this happen?  Who knows?  But you can not board an airline, cash a check, buy alcohol, apply for social security, apply for food stamps, apply for welfare, apply for a mortgage, buy a car, purchase a gun, adopt a pet, get a hunting license, pick up a prescription, purchase certain cold tablets, or give blood without being physically present and showing ID.  If these are "so important" and cause concern about them fraudulently being done without ID, what could make anyone think that those were subject to fraud but voting is not. 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

This should be pretty simple but it is not.  In many states you don't have to show any ID in order to vote.  In others you do.  Given that voting into office is one of the most important actions a citizen can perform it seems only reasonable that a person be 1. Required to be registered  2. Be required to show up at the polls in order to vote 3. Present ID proving the identity of the person voting establishing that the voter is really the registered person.  There is no reason in today's world that ID cards can not be provided at no cost to people.  

With mail in voting, I can not envision a system that is more vulnerable to fraud.  You have the IRS who sent more than 1 million covid relief checks to dead people let alone the number that went to those not eligible yet we are to believe that somehow the state governments sent mail in ballots ONLY TO ELIGIBLE VOTERS.  Next, there is no way of establishing that the person who returned the ballot was actually the registered voter.  There are some handwriting comparison programs but they are far from foolproof.  Lastly, there is no way of establishing that even if the person validly received the ballot and returned the ballot that there was not some inducement to vote for or against a specific candidate.  It would be far to easy for an organized group to submit and receive ballots on behalf of other people and then coerce them with cigarettes, liquor, money or drugs.  Does this happen?  Who knows?  But you can not board an airline, cash a check, buy alcohol, apply for social security, apply for food stamps, apply for welfare, apply for a mortgage, buy a car, purchase a gun, adopt a pet, get a hunting license, pick up a prescription, purchase certain cold tablets, or give blood without being physically present and showing ID.  If these are "so important" and cause concern about them fraudulently being done without ID, what could make anyone think that those were subject to fraud but voting is not. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

What do you mean by ID? A picture ID? 

[Credo]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

This should be pretty simple but it is not.  In many states you don't have to show any ID in order to vote.  In others you do.  Given that voting into office is one of the most important actions a citizen can perform it seems only reasonable that a person be 1. Required to be registered  2. Be required to show up at the polls in order to vote 3. Present ID proving the identity of the person voting establishing that the voter is really the registered person.  There is no reason in today's world that ID cards can not be provided at no cost to people.  

With mail in voting, I can not envision a system that is more vulnerable to fraud.  You have the IRS who sent more than 1 million covid relief checks to dead people let alone the number that went to those not eligible yet we are to believe that somehow the state governments sent mail in ballots ONLY TO ELIGIBLE VOTERS.  Next, there is no way of establishing that the person who returned the ballot was actually the registered voter.  There are some handwriting comparison programs but they are far from foolproof.  Lastly, there is no way of establishing that even if the person validly received the ballot and returned the ballot that there was not some inducement to vote for or against a specific candidate.  It would be far to easy for an organized group to submit and receive ballots on behalf of other people and then coerce them with cigarettes, liquor, money or drugs.  Does this happen?  Who knows?  But you can not board an airline, cash a check, buy alcohol, apply for social security, apply for food stamps, apply for welfare, apply for a mortgage, buy a car, purchase a gun, adopt a pet, get a hunting license, pick up a prescription, purchase certain cold tablets, or give blood without being physically present and showing ID.  If these are "so important" and cause concern about them fraudulently being done without ID, what could make anyone think that those were subject to fraud but voting is not. 

Complete nonsense.  What does sending checks to dead people have to do with voting?  Nothing.   It's simply a deflection.   

Voting is a right, it's not a privilege and nothing should be put in place that impedes the citizens the right to vote.   

 

It's clear that you don't want poor or homeless people to vote, I mean, someone could give them alcohol or pay them, yet you show no credible support for this.

 

If you are going to get rid of absentee ballots, then get rid of all of them, including the military and overseas.   Show up and the poll or lose your vote.   

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Credo

[Thomas J]

11 hours ago, Credo said:

Complete nonsense.  What does sending checks to dead people have to do with voting?  Nothing.   It's simply a deflection.   

Voting is a right, it's not a privilege and nothing should be put in place that impedes the citizens the right to vote. 

It is not nonsense.  It proves how inept the government is.  If they can't determine if you are alive or dead do you really believe they would accurately tell if voters are legitimate or not.

In terms of voting restrictions.  No I am not for taking away peoples right to vote.  However, if it is deemed so mandatory that a person SHOW UP IN PERSON AND PRESENT ID in order to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or open a cell phone account.  It is ludicrous to just say that the same is not required to vote. A much more critical function. 

[Jingthing]

This isn't mysterious. 

The republican party has two choices if they want to win federal power in the future.

Adjust their ideology to attract more non whites and more moderate whites and independents.

Or double down on gerrymandering and anti majoritarian tactics like voter suppression. 

They've obviously chosen the latter.

 

[mtraveler]

21 hours ago, Thomas J said:

This should be pretty simple but it is not.  In many states you don't have to show any ID in order to vote.  In others you do.  Given that voting into office is one of the most important actions a citizen can perform it seems only reasonable that a person be 1. Required to be registered  2. Be required to show up at the polls in order to vote 3. Present ID proving the identity of the person voting establishing that the voter is really the registered person.  There is no reason in today's world that ID cards can not be provided at no cost to people.  

With mail in voting, I can not envision a system that is more vulnerable to fraud.  You have the IRS who sent more than 1 million covid relief checks to dead people let alone the number that went to those not eligible yet we are to believe that somehow the state governments sent mail in ballots ONLY TO ELIGIBLE VOTERS.  Next, there is no way of establishing that the person who returned the ballot was actually the registered voter.  There are some handwriting comparison programs but they are far from foolproof.  Lastly, there is no way of establishing that even if the person validly received the ballot and returned the ballot that there was not some inducement to vote for or against a specific candidate.  It would be far to easy for an organized group to submit and receive ballots on behalf of other people and then coerce them with cigarettes, liquor, money or drugs.  Does this happen?  Who knows?  But you can not board an airline, cash a check, buy alcohol, apply for social security, apply for food stamps, apply for welfare, apply for a mortgage, buy a car, purchase a gun, adopt a pet, get a hunting license, pick up a prescription, purchase certain cold tablets, or give blood without being physically present and showing ID.  If these are "so important" and cause concern about them fraudulently being done without ID, what could make anyone think that those were subject to fraud but voting is not. 

Although I might disagree with you regarding mail-in voting, I'd be willing to go along with your rules for voting if you would also agree to the following:

 

1- Make getting an ID and registering to vote easy.  In other words, let's not put roadblocks up to keep people from getting ID's and registering.  Don't have an office open just a few hours per month (during people's work hours, when they can't get out), and make people drive many miles to get there.  Make it easy and fair for ALL to get their ID's.  Set up a federal program to get all Americans signed up, and get them all national/state ID's.

 

2- Make voting itself fair and easy too.  No one should have to wait more than one hour to vote.  There should be enough days to vote (including weekends) so that those who cannot get out of work (ie, the low-wage earners) have opportunities to vote on their days off.  No one should have to travel more than 10 miles to vote.  No one should have to jump through hoops to vote when they get there.  

 

Make in-person voting and getting proper ID convenient and fair, and I'm willing to give up mail-in voting for now.  Though I'm sure you want those in the military to be able to vote by mail. And I'm sure you've got some fool-proof system to guarantee that THEIR ballots aren't fraudulent, right?  

 

And once we get this all resolved, let's deal with gerrymandering.  And THEN let's come up with a system we can all agree on that works in terms of mail-in voting (like it does in Oregon, and at least 10 European countries).  

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that voting restrictions being presented by Republicans are designed to limit votes that would be cast by those who most likely would vote Democratic.  Yes, you might argue that many of the rules presented by Democrats would bring out more Democratic votes, but there's a huge difference between trying to include more people via legislation as opposed to trying to exclude people via legislation.  Especially when you consider the history of Americans trying to keep Black people from receiving the rights of all other Americans.  

[Thomas J]

30 minutes ago, mtraveler said:

 

1- Make getting an ID and registering to vote easy

Thank you for the civil response.  In terms of making ID and registering easy, I agree with you and certainly the government can and should provide State ID cards with pictures at no cost for those who don't have a drivers license.  However, I disagree with you regarding mail in votes.  Those "were intended" for people who legitimately were out of their voting districts at the time of the election or were incapacitated in some fashion.  

You would not allow "mail in" identification to buy alcohol online.  You would not think of allowing "mail in" verification for pre-boarding an airplane. You would not allow "mail in" documentation to purchase a firearm.  Yet in the USA numerous states Illinois being one of them, you do not have to show any form of ID in order to vote even if you show up in person.  If you know the persons name and the precinct they are registered in, anyone can show up and vote on their behalf.  

I can tell you, I opened a brokerage account online.  In order to get approved I had to present ID to a Notary Public and mail in copies of my passport, and drivers license along with that notary statement attesting to my identity.  I then had to video conference with the brokerage house holding my passport next to my face at the same time so they could record it. 

Some states allow voter harvesting where people can go out and collect mail in ballots.  All of those run counter to not having a voter be influenced.  I see no one complain when a hotel, rental car, bank, insurance company, immigration, drivers license bureau etc ask for ID yet somehow the idea that voting does not require the same degree of due diligence I find strange. 

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, Thomas J said:

It is not nonsense.  It proves how inept the government is.  If they can't determine if you are alive or dead do you really believe they would accurately tell if voters are legitimate or not.

In terms of voting restrictions.  No I am not for taking away peoples right to vote.  However, if it is deemed so mandatory that a person SHOW UP IN PERSON AND PRESENT ID in order to buy alcohol, cigarettes, or open a cell phone account.  It is ludicrous to just say that the same is not required to vote. A much more critical function. 

As has been shown repeatedly, state governments where Republicans are in control make it difficult for those segments of the population who would be more likely to vote Democratic. For instance, in Texas, a hunting license is considered adequate ID but not a student ID from a state University. Also, Texas refuses to offer extended hours at its motor vehicle depts to allow working people who don't have cars to get a state ID. And also make people who live in poorer parts of the state travel longer distances to get to motor vehicle centers.

In addition, in the past, 5 states where Republicans had the governorship and both statehouse conducted intensive investigations looking for voter fraud. They found virtually nothing.