Today Vox is one again playing the voter suppression card:

Why voting in 2016 could be nearly impossible for some Americans

Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and North Dakota have all implemented strict voter ID laws since the last time Americans picked a president in 2012. And this could leave millions of would-be voters unable to cast a ballot.

Alas poor Vox, they seem to forget that some of the states on their list have already voted so lets take a look

In Texas one of the states listed as having these laws if we look at turnout in 2008 to 2016 (I use 2008 vs 2012 because of contested primaries in both parties) it’s pretty much a wash. 4,265,431 cast ballots in the primaries this year while in 2008 Dems & GOP drew 4,237,308 a tiny increase but certainly not a drop

Meanwhile in Virginia the number of votes went UP from 1.44 million to 1.79 mil (780K dems 1.019 mil gop) an increase of over 20%.

According to Vox this can’t be. Might it be that the cries of voter disenfranchisement is a bunch of bull?

Or put another way, I’ll believe requiring ID is discrimination when in our litigious society, banks and supermarkets are sued en masse for requiring them.

Closing thought: If this voter ID discrimination was actually legit given the Democrats well known patronage of the poor surely a portion of the hundreds of millions raised by the party and by Hillary could be used to help said poor acquire these free IDs? In fact as such expenditures could be done at the Party or even the super pac level our Democrat friends with the help of the Hollywood elite would easily be able to cover the minor transportation expenses involved and perhaps even a stipend to make up for a day’s lost work, of course as an ID is required to be hired at almost any job to fill out a W2, a person working by definition would already have an ID wouldn’t they?

I think that’s a great question, wouldn’t you like an answer?

*****************************************************************

I’m back trying to get that elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar. It’s been a full week since we’ve done so

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our February readers this month subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If less than 2/3 of 1% did, I’d be completely out of debt and able to attend CPAC

If a full 1% of our February readers subscribed at $10 a month I could afford to travel across the country covering the presidential race this year in person for a full month.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



rand_paul-618x400by baldilocks

Recently, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has been intimating that the GOP should drop the topic of voter ID legislation. This position seems to have been influenced by his speech at Howard University—a historically black university—and by his meeting with a group of black pastors. In short, in these two meetings, it seems that some sets of self-appointed black “leaders” and spokesbodies have informed him and his party should lay off the advocacy so as not to appear racist, especially racist against blacks.

And, today, Senator Paul seems to be saying “let’s not drop it, but let’s keep it on the down-low.”

It’s really tough to listen to politicians “debate” issues like voter ID as if a solid foundation for debate actually exists. It’s equally tough to watch as reasonably sane politicians like Senator Paul kowtow to the bought and paid-for Leftist shills as they tell him what the Organized Left—their masters–want.

The Organized Left wants anyone and everyone—citizen or not—to be able to vote and to do so as many times as desired. That ability makes voter fraud easier and voter ID laws prevent these frauds. And, since there is no above-board reason to oppose voter ID, one has to be fabricated. Racism charges always work.

The idea that there are large groups of black Americans running around with no form of identification is so incredibly ridiculous—not to mention insulting—that it seems equally ridiculous even to explain it.

However, the beauty of this particular fraud is two-fold. Common sense will tell most observers that this notion is the most blatant of lies, and, therefore, many proponents of voter ID see no need to spell out why it’s a lie. Secondly, we Americans have been inundated for so long with the idea that black Americans are helpless babies that some of us who don’t know that many poor black persons may begin to believe the lie.

Why won’t some prominent politician have the stones to call the foundation undergirding opposition to voter ID what it actually is? It’s Bravo Sierra.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published ibaldilocks2009; the second edition in 2012. Her new novel, Arlen’s Harem, is due in 2014. Help her fund it and help keep her blog alive!

While we ponder the questions the left isn’t asking about the reaction to Operation Pillar of Defense Granite Grok is still there and keeping an eye on some questions that have yet to be answered about the late election, first the stats:

First, in a town with 5000 plus voters there were 630 new registrations for this year’s election.

The law give NH citizens the ability to see public documents

New Hampshire State law (91-a) allows the citizen to review, examine, or inspect, any public document that is available. They can even take pictures of it, or make their own copies or abstracts as long as the document(s) are on site and it occurs during regular business hours.

Granite Grok however reports that there was a slight issue when a citizen wanted to see the form concerning these 630 new registrations…

These 630 new voters piqued the interest of a Barrington resident, who decided that they wanted to get a copy of this public record, but when they asked the Town clerk said it would cost him $300.00.

The Grok folks have some questions about this, but wanting to be fair to all concerned I called the Town Clerk’s office myself. I spoke to a very nice lady who asked me if I could submit those questions via an e-mail to make it easier. So I did, providing a link to the Grok article quoted above with the following questions:

Per said article I have the following questions

1. Is the record of the voter rolls in Barrington available to be viewed by the public

2. Is there a separate record of new registrants and/or same day registrants available?

3. Did a person come in to obtain said records?

4. If so was said person told it would be $300 for said records?
4a. If there is such a fee, is that set by the city or state? Is it a standard fee for records?

5. The GROK article states that such public records are available under state law saying the following:

New Hampshire State law (91-a) allows the citizen to review, examine, or inspect, any public document that is available. They can even take pictures of it, or make their own copies or abstracts as long as the document(s) are on site and it occurs during regular business hours.
5a Is this correct and if so can said person make their own copies without charge?

6. Will said records be available electronically (in PDF format etc) and available either to the public on request or on the Barrington site eventually?

7. If I came down to see said records would they be available for viewing?

Any help in answering these question would be appreciated

Thank you.

That was on Wednesday November 14th when I first wrote this post but held back posting awaiting a reply and while I’m sure Barrington NH can be a busy place I think five days is plenty of time for it to come.

By an odd coincidence while I haven’t received a reply the day after I sent that request Granite Grok’s person went back to the town hall and was told the following:

Our intrepid checklist warrior went back to the clerk armed with 91-a and was informed that they didn’t actually have the list prepared yet. He was told that it would be a few weeks but that they would give him an electronic copy of the new list when it was complete. Skip has encouraged him to go back and ask for the existing list, which they used for election day, and which we now know is available in electronic form. For free, apparently.

Amazing how things change after an e-mail from a guy with 50,000 watts behind him isn’t it?

Maybe it’s just me but if you multiply this question by small town after small town in NH and you get a margin of victory that doesn’t show up in polls.

That’s apparently a question our friends on the left aren’t asking, but we will.

Update: Apparently Barrington replied to my questions promptly but due to an e-mail glitch I missed their e-mails (along with 7 weeks of them from a particular account) until December 29th.

My apology post is here, and the e-mail responses from Barrington follow below:

Dear Peter “DaTechGuy” Ingemi,

My answers are listed below:

1. Is the record of the voter rolls in Barrington available to be viewed by the public YES

2. Is there a separate record of new registrants and/or same day registrants available? NO, PER Secretary of States Office

3. Did a person come in to obtain said records? YES

4. If so was said person told it would be $300 for said records?NO, the fee would be actually be $379 which is the rate for the current MARKED CHECKLIST, which is based on our current photocopy fee per page, which is $1/page.

4a. If there is such a fee, is that set by the city or state? Is it a standard fee for records? For a marked checklist

the fee is what the Town or City charges for a copy.

5. The GROK article states that such public records are available under state law saying the following:

New Hampshire State law (91-a) allows the citizen to review, examine, or inspect, any public document that is available. They can even take pictures of it, or make their own copies or abstracts as long as the document(s) are on site and it occurs during regular business hours.

5a Is this correct and if so can said person make their own copies without charge? A person may view and takes notes on the marked checklist, but NO there will be no copies made without a charge, PER NH STATE LAW (91-a;IV)

“If a photocopying machine or other device maintained for use by a body or agency is used by the body or agency to copy the public record or document requested, the person requesting the copy may be charged the actual cost of providing the copy, which cost may be collected by the body or agency.”

6. Will said records be available electronically (in PDF format etc) and available either to the public on request or on the Barrington site eventually? An electronic copy will be available upon request after the Supervisors of the Checklist have entered and scanned the checklist and new voters into the statewide database for a fee of $26.50.

7. If I came down to see said records would they be available for viewing? YES

I have answered all your questions to the best of my ability, if you have any further questions please

feel free to contact the New Hampshire Secretary of State at 271-3242.

Kimberly Kerekes

As a result of such tactics the vote from the Valley rarely displayed the diversity of opinion associated with a democracy; some 15,000 votes were generally believed to be controlled in the Valley, and it was not unusual for them to go to a favored candidate by margins as large as ten to one.

Robert Caro: The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power 1982 P722

I talked about the left’s rush to go after the Pennsylvania voter ID law in my last post,. It’s worth noting that as the left wails loudly over the Pennsylvania law New Hampshire another swing state approved a similar law back on June 28th.

In New Hampshire, different forms of identification are accepted, or residents have the option of signing an affidavit. The list will be shortened in 2013, and student ID cards and documents more than five years old will no longer be accepted.

This law took effect yesterday and for some reason it isn’t producing the same reaction among our friends on the left that the Pennsylvania law does.

Why?

If this is a question of voter disenfranchisement aren’t NH voters worth the same outcry as Pennsylvania? Do they not deserve the same angst as their larger brothers to the south?

The difference might be in the electoral vote count (NH has but 4) but perhaps NH’s Voter ID law doesn’t scare them as much because it doesn’t have large Democrat run cities that the Keystone State has. To wit:

the potential problem is much bigger, particularly in Philadelphia, where 186,830 registered voters – 18 percent of the city’s total registration – do not have PennDot ID.

Hmmm it would seem voters in cities have an ID problem. That’s strange to me. Why would a person in a city have less a need for an ID? In a city environment with a larger bureaucracy and less personal knowledge of the individual such ID would seem more necessary for life rather than less.

Even stranger this problem only seems to be evident among people who are inclined to vote for democrats. Note this editorial concerning the law

Second comes the GOP’s own admission — conveniently after the fact, of course — that their agenda was indeed political. The moment came last month at a GOP State Committee meeting, when House Republican Majority Leader Mike Turzai recounted Republicans’ legislative accomplishments for the year. Among them, Turzai announced to enthusiastic applause: “Voter ID — which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”

Pennsylvania didn’t need the voter ID law. There was no credible evidence of voters impersonating other voters at the polls. There was one reason, and one reason only, to pass the new requirement, and it wasn’t the security of the ballot. It was the outcome of the election. We knew it all along. Now the GOP House leader has put it out there for everyone to see.

What our frenzied editorialist doesn’t do is answer a basic question, a question that any reasonable person might ask:

Why should producing an ID change the result of any election?

Why should the use of an item needed at any bank, to cash any paycheck or government check, to use a credit card, an item you are asked to produce at a hospital, at a supermarket or even to buy booze cause the results of an election to change? Do Democrats need these ID less that republicans?

What could possibility be going on that would cause the passage of a strong voter ID law backed by an Army of Davids equipped with iPhones and internet connections along with an energized Tea Party with volunteers willing and able to serve as poll watchers to strike such fear into the hearts of Democrat leaning Union Stewards and Machine Pols who in the past have managed to deliver their precincts to their party by overwhelming margins?

I suspect the people screaming the loudest know the answer and that’s why they are screaming.

———-
The DaTechGuy Fundraiser continues, our goal is $3000. Any help is appreciated.

For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.