No... it was the 2005, jimmy carter/baker election reform council report.  Though like I said, that was actually cases where fraud could occur.   Misread that earlier.

Was 1,700 cases.... of one very specific kind of fraud.

Jimmy Carter is about as liberal as someone can get... and he's for voter registration IDs...

don't know what to tell you.

http://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/voter_id.html

It costs $0.28 a month to own a photo ID in PA (I looked up PA because people were talking about that state earlier)

In my opinion, both political parties are being dishonest when it comes to the voter ID debate ...

Being that there is a significant percentage of them who pay insane fees for pre-paid debit cards because they lack the education/understanding to open a bank account, Republicans know that voter ID laws will prevent poor people from voting but they don't care because they know/believe these people will vote for the Democrats anyways.

At the same time the Democrats know there has been rampant voter registration fraud and good reason to believe that illegal immigrants and convicts are voting (and that other people are voting multiple times) but they don't care because they know/believe these people will vote for the Democrats anyways.

Ultimately, I think voter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud and I think that some free form of ID should be provided by the government and there should (probably) be regular campaigns to get these IDs into the hands of voters. Something as simple as a yearly campaign that sets up shop in community schools across the country should be able to meet the needs of almost everyone who needs voter ID.

Sounds about right to me.

Though the secret is... those people who need help to get such cards... don't really vote anyway.

Which is one reason why Jimmy Carter is for voter IDs.

He actually thinks voter IDs would INCREASE turnout.

But the poor who don't drive, or the elderly who aren't especially mobile.

Of course, the ironic thing here is that this isn't effecting absentee balloting at all, and in PA all you need to know is name and birthdate to get that...

I'm not sure how I feel about this law. How do you distinguish between those who are lazy and leech off society as opposed to honest people who may be collecting unemployment, but who have trouble finding a stable job? Between mid 2009 and mid 2010, I was unemployed. I didn't choose to be that way. The place I worked at closed down. I collected unemployment for a year. I honestly couldn't find a job. I don't think it would have been fair to deny my right to vote (even though the 2010 elections took place after I found a job).

Scott Brown doesn't actually want people on welfare to note vote.  That's just taking out of context the fact that Scott Brown is angry that a specific action is being taken, that wasn't before to go way out of the way to help his opponent with government funds... by the other candidates daughter.

An analogus situation would be if John Kaish in Ohio suddenly passed a massive government funded initative to register rural voters.

The initiative was to register people on welfare to vote, in order to be compliant with federal requirements, by getting them ballots.  In short, don't spend tax dollars to enable people to vote.  Why?  Because these individuals in the assessment of Scott Brown, are individuals who are opposed to his campaign.  He flat out said that the tax dollars were being spent to enable those who are opposed to him, to get them to vote.  As he said:

I want every legal vote to count, but it’s outrageous to use taxpayer dollars to register welfare recipients as part of a special effort to boost one political party over another. This effort to sign up welfare recipients is being aided by Elizabeth Warren’s daughter and it’s clearly designed to benefit her mother’s political campaign. It means that I’m going to have to work that much harder to get out my pro-jobs, pro-free enterprise message.

The reality here is that welfare recipients would vote not for him, but his opponent.  Spending tax dollars to get them to vote, is working against him.  In short, that demographic is opposed to him.  Thus, take it back to my original point: If you feel people on welfare and unemployed and shouldn't vote, vote Republican.  That is the standard policy there.  In fact, I could bring up the Ann Coulters and others, who are moutpieces promoting the GOP agenda, and show how they come out and do say this.  

Except that doesn't make them complient with Federal Requirements... what would of did that was better training of the welfare offices who were messing up.  Which is what every other State Demos sued was forced to do.

Mass is the only state that Demos demanded send out voter registration ballots.  It's also the only state where one of the groups officer's mothers was running for senate.  It's also really the only state with a hair thin election.

As for Welfare recipents voting Democrat.  That's not really Scott Brown's belief, that's just basic demographic polling.

The "welfare" poor tend to vote liberal, while the "working" poor tend to vote republican.

It's actually the strongest correlator of which way a poor person will vote politically if I remember correctly.

I think you're right but.......Nobody tells d21 what to do!