Archive for Tuesday, August 14, 2012

New ID law has little effect on provisional ballots

August 14, 2012


Nearly exactly the same number of voters were given provisional ballots in this year’s Aug. 7 primaries as last year’s. About 27 percent of the provisional ballots were cast because of Kansas’ voter identification law, new this year.

Douglas County Clerk Jamie Shew said that voters cast 171 provisional ballots, compared with 172 last year. Forty-six of the provisional ballots this year were given to voters who weren’t able to show suitable ID at the polls. The most common reason, other than ID, that voters get provisional ballots is because they show up to the wrong polling location.

Voters have until 9 a.m. Thursday to send proof of identification to the county clerk’s office to have their vote count in the canvass. Twenty-eight of the 46 have done this as of about 4 p.m. Tuesday, Shew said, leaving 18 that the office are still trying to reach. A few people they have contacted indicated that they don’t intend to turn in proof of ID as a “protest of the law,” Shew said.

The 18 left can scan their IDs and email an image to, fax it to 832-5192 or bring it by the County Courthouse at 1100 Mass.

Shew said that the unofficial total voter turnout last Tuesday was 10,086, or about 13.5 percent of the total number of registered voters as of June. About 19.2 percent of registered Democrats voted and about 23.1 percent of Republicans.

Google form

Voter turn out

This chart shows the portion of ballots cast in the Aug. 7 primary in comparison to the total number of registered voters in Douglas County. The total ballot count — 10,257 — includes provisional ballots, all of which may not be counted in the final canvass on Thursday.

Google form

Provisional ballots in Douglas County primary

In the Aug. 7 primary, 171 people were given provisional ballots. Forty-eight were given due to the new Kansas voter identification law. About 10,086 people voted (not counting provisional ballots).


consumer1 5 years, 9 months ago

Wow! you mean the world is not going to end after all?? The sky isn't falling?? The communits are not taking over?? Whew! cause I was sure after reading all the left wing blogs the world was coming to an end. After all, asking folks to be responsible for themselves. Outlandish!!

markoo 5 years, 9 months ago


I'm still wondering why we needed a law for a problem that was nonexistent?

A little math for you slow Wingnutters. As this study demonstrates:

Among 600,000,000 votes cast, only 2,068 ALLEGED voter election fraud occurred. That's a .000003 incidence. Holy crap! I'm so glad we're on top of that high rate with our new laws.

But wait, it gets sooo much better!

Out of that alleged voter fraud, only 30.6% or .306 chance of voter fraud actually occurred. That's a .000001 incidence of ALL voter fraud or .0001% occurrence.

And in-person voter fraud, that's even lower - a .000000001 or .0000001% occurrence.

So unless we are to assume the GOP in each state is after all the ridiculously low percentage of outrageous illegal events in their respective states, I think it's safe to assume that their efforts are highly likely geared towards something else, namely:

  1. This "voter fraud" B.S. is a nice hot button item to gin up their own base to go vote
  2. The vast majority of people whom will be affected by their new laws are not voting for the GOP candidates.

Funny how both items are also true.

notajayhawk 5 years, 9 months ago

"Among 600,000,000 votes cast, only 2,068 ALLEGED voter election fraud occurred."

And out of 308,000,000 people in the United states, only 10,000 are killed every year by drunk drivers! That's only .000034 of the population! Why are we wasting time on laws against drunk driving???

chootspa 5 years, 9 months ago

The alleged in-person voter fraud (only thing voter ID would address) is so astronomically low that it doesn't even come close to swinging the outcome, while the 10,000 people killed by drunk drivers are still quite dead. Equivalency fail.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

In all the decades I've voted, I always showed up, told them my name and address and voted. Now, suppose John Doe shows up at the polls and says they are Bill Smith, tells them Bill Smith's address and then is allowed to vote. No one will ever know unless John Doe comes to the polling place and disputes the ballot that has already been cast. And with very low voter turnout, it is much more likely than not that John Doe will not show up. So the illegal ballot is cast and never disputed.

Now, add in the possibility that a poll worker alerts a friend or two shortly before voting ends that Bill Smith has not shown up. And neither has James White and Charles Brown. Then a couple of more illegal ballots are cast.

The point being that there may or may not have been a lot more illegal voting than that which has been alleged and/or proven.

In my opinion, I would guess it's been very little. But if you say it's been zero, above what is known, that seems foolish. It is some number above what is known. And what that number is is unknown. Guess it's zero or guess it's a million. Your guess is as good as anybody's.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

If this happened at all frequently, even with low voter turnout, it'd be easily detected. It hasn't been detected, which means one thing-- it hasn't been happening.

Why hasn't it been happening? There is little or no incentive to do so, and it'd be too easy to detect if done in a systematic enough way to affect the outcome of an election.

Spin and twist as much as you like, but the stated purpose for these laws doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. Which means there there is a distinct shortage of logical thinkers in the Republican Party, and/or there is another, quite obvious motive-- one that's even been admitted to-- vote suppression. I'd say it's a little of the first explanation, and a whole lot of the latter.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

I think we've all heard the story of the 1960 election between Kennedy and Nixon where if just one vote per precinct in Illinois had beed changed from Kennedy to Nixon, the outcome of the election would have changed. I've never researched that story, but I've heard it many times over the years. One vote per precinct. And of course, that story is in the context of the Chicago machine that invented the expression, "vote early and often".

Most times it won't change the outcome of the election. Most times it won't happen at all. Most times.

I agree that the instances of election fraud are exceedingly rare. But that's not to say they are non-existent. Pretending they are non-existent is as foolish as pretending they are rampant. The only question is may we, should we implement safeguards that are reasonable and then how we define reasonable. Personally, I have no problem at all leaving it to the courts to define reasonable. If these voter ID laws are struck down, I'm fine with that. If they're upheld, I'm fine with that as well.

Greg Cooper 5 years, 9 months ago

Same argument that you rail against: IF sosmebody doesn't vote and IF the polling worker alerts his buddy then that buddy MAY vot in lace of whoever doesn't show up.

Smaller government, in my opinion, is not what makes new laws that do nothing but expand on old laws that are already working. The Republican Party is the party of smaller government, right? Then keep it small, and simply enforce, under oresent statute, the laws as written.

The Republican talking point is not always a real issue but is based on trumped up non-problems to garner votes from citizens who are afraid because they've been told to be afraid. Cut it out and get on with the business of protecting our property, our liberty, and our way of life, without adding distracting, unnecessary regulations that are already covered.

chootspa 5 years, 9 months ago

That's an awful lot of trouble for one vote, especially when one vote generally doesn't sway the election one way or another. High risk. Low reward. Extremely infrequent. Let's spend a huge amount of tax money to prevent it from happening. Bonus if it just coincidentally happens to disenfranchise the voters with whom we disagree.

Linda Endicott 5 years, 9 months ago

All the times I've ever voted, I gave them my name and address AND had to sign my name in the book... I imagine I'll still have to sign the book this year...isn't my signature enough proof anymore? Of the two, picture ID or signature, which one would be the easiest to fake? I think ID would be...and they haven't even talked about how prevalent fake IDs are...

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

Comprehensive Database of U.S. Voter Fraud Uncovers No Evidence That Photo ID Is Needed

"A News21 analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent. In an exhaustive public records search, News21 reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of fraudulent activity including registration fraud, absentee ballot fraud, vote buying, false election counts, campaign fraud, casting an ineligible vote, voting twice, voter impersonation fraud and intimidation.

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters."

notajayhawk 5 years, 9 months ago

"while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal"

And somewhat higher than the number of people who were 'disenfranchised' by voter ID laws - including those who refused to comply as a 'protest of the law.'

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

Is that a reasoned and comprehensive analysis, or just your wishful thinking?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

There were already plenty of safeguards against it in place which would have tipped off election officials if it were happening to any significant degree. The fact that there is virtually NO evidence of it happening, coupled with the fact that there is also little or no incentive to do so can lead to only one conclusion-- there is no voter fraud.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 9 months ago

Wouldn't their incentive to vote be exactly the same as my incentive to vote? Even though I strongly suspect that my one vote will never be "the" one vote that decides an election, I still vote and I still believe it's my duty to vote. It's my right and my responsibility. I pay taxes and as you are quick to point out, so do they, whoever they are. I recall something about taxation and representation. Wouldn't they feel the same?

As to the safeguards, as I said above, show up, tell them your address and as krazyks pointed out, sign the register book. What safeguards are you talking about. And I'll even give an example. I did not vote in this past election, being neither a Democrat nor Republican. How would I know if someone went to my polling place and said they were me, gave my address and signed my name. I would have no way of knowing, would I? Except that another layer of protection has been added this time, an ID requirement. But previously, just showing up, giving an address and signing would have been sufficient. How would I know if my name was given in previous elections when I chose not to vote?

Mixolydian 5 years, 9 months ago

Two political hot potatos that I see as absolutely common sense ideas are Voter ID and a ban on assault rifles. When I see anyone who opposes either I see a blind idealogue.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 9 months ago

"Common sense" would imply that it accomplishes its stated goal. Since there is no vote fraud, real common sense says that the law is not there for the purported purpose.

So that must mean that you believe vote suppression is "common sense."

chootspa 5 years, 9 months ago

I want zero crime of any sort. We should install cameras in everyone's home to prevent them from committing a crime undetected. Another safeguard is a good thing. I suspect any person or group that opposes the law of selfish motives.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.