DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Fight against so-called voter "fraud" unwittingly targets legitimate voters.

**Super-Luser** · 08-19-2012, 07:40 PM

Voter IDs are not a simple fix to voter fraud either. There are a myriad of other costs and considerations when this requirement is added:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content...he_courts_say/

A fiscal note prepared in conjunction with aproposed photo ID law in Missouri estimated a cost of $6 million for the first year in which the law was to be in effect, followed by recurring costs of approximately $4 million per year.
When Indianaestimated the costs of its photo ID law, it found that, to provide more than 168,000 IDs to voters,the “[t]otal production costs, including man-power, transaction time and manufacturing” was in excess of $1.3 million, with an additional revenue loss of nearly $2.2 million.
That estimateapparently did not include a variety of necessary costs, including the costs of training and votereducation and outreach. A fiscal note assessing an ID bill in Minnesota estimated at least $250,000for the manufacturing costs of providing free ID at only 90 locations across the state, the costs of onetraining conference for county auditors, and some administrative costs.
The estimate includedneither the costs of outreach and education, nor any of the significant costs that would be borne by local governments.
The note estimated an additional cost of $536,000 per election if each precincthired just one additional election judge. While a few million dollars a year may not sound like a lot, that sum is a significant fraction of states’total election administration budgets. Missouri, for example, spent about $10.5 million in its 2009fiscal year; a photo ID requirement would have increased the state’s election administrationspending by more than 50%, according to the state’s own estimate. Indiana’s Elections Divisionspent about $3.4 million in its 2009–2010 fiscal year,
which is roughly equal to the state’s estimatedcosts for photo ID from 2008 to 2010. States are unlikely to receive sufficient federal assistance tomeet these costs.
In Wisconsin, a nonpartisan association of local election officials expressedconcerns about a photo ID bill, in significant part because of the fiscal impact of photo IDrequirements on local municipalities and state agencies.
And in Iowa, an association of localelection officials made up of Republicans and Democrats cited the cost of photo ID laws in publicly registering its opposition to an Iowa photo ID bill.

08-19-2012, 07:40 PM	#33
Super-Luser Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 561 Senior Member	Voter IDs are not a simple fix to voter fraud either. There are a myriad of other costs and considerations when this requirement is added: http://www.brennancenter.org/content...he_courts_say/ A fiscal note prepared in conjunction with aproposed photo ID law in Missouri estimated a cost of $6 million for the first year in which the law was to be in effect, followed by recurring costs of approximately $4 million per year. When Indianaestimated the costs of its photo ID law, it found that, to provide more than 168,000 IDs to voters,the “[t]otal production costs, including man-power, transaction time and manufacturing” was in excess of $1.3 million, with an additional revenue loss of nearly $2.2 million. That estimateapparently did not include a variety of necessary costs, including the costs of training and votereducation and outreach. A fiscal note assessing an ID bill in Minnesota estimated at least $250,000for the manufacturing costs of providing free ID at only 90 locations across the state, the costs of onetraining conference for county auditors, and some administrative costs. The estimate includedneither the costs of outreach and education, nor any of the significant costs that would be borne by local governments. The note estimated an additional cost of $536,000 per election if each precincthired just one additional election judge. While a few million dollars a year may not sound like a lot, that sum is a significant fraction of states’total election administration budgets. Missouri, for example, spent about $10.5 million in its 2009fiscal year; a photo ID requirement would have increased the state’s election administrationspending by more than 50%, according to the state’s own estimate. Indiana’s Elections Divisionspent about $3.4 million in its 2009–2010 fiscal year, which is roughly equal to the state’s estimatedcosts for photo ID from 2008 to 2010. States are unlikely to receive sufficient federal assistance tomeet these costs. In Wisconsin, a nonpartisan association of local election officials expressedconcerns about a photo ID bill, in significant part because of the fiscal impact of photo IDrequirements on local municipalities and state agencies. And in Iowa, an association of localelection officials made up of Republicans and Democrats cited the cost of photo ID laws in publicly registering its opposition to an Iowa photo ID bill.
	Quote