"I am thinking of the people in Philadelphia, were you?"

Probably not very much since he's a Maryland senator. What happened in Philadelphia?

Cardin is not a Maryland senator but a US Senator representing Maryland. His writing here, he talked about a bill with his NY Senate partner, Shumer. That is far beyond just Maryland.
Actual video of the Philadelphia action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

Testimony in Congress about dropping the case of voter intimidation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3FJE4qQbS0

Frank - Voter Intimidation is just that. Standing with a weapon in front of a polling place is the crime. Much like if you were carrying a gun in the District. Would you say, hard to prosecute if no one was shot?

Yes, I understood the difference between a state senator and a US senator, but he represents the state of Maryland so his primary concern should be his constituents here, not other states. That's all I meant.

As for the videos you posted:
via http://live.washingtonpost.com/black-panther-party-10-22-10.html

"I spent a day interviewing voters in this ward and people told me they didn't think that the men were "too exciting" and generally were not afraid. One of the members of the New Black Panther Party, Jerry Jackson, lives in the neighborhood and had been at the polling place on other occassions."

What's intimidating to you may not be intimidating to the locals by the polling place.

This stuff really is just political grandstanding. If Cardin wanted to make a difference, he would join this bill to one requiring photo ID to vote, and the bill would have bipartisan support. Seriously--why can't we ask people who vote to show some proof that they are who they say they are. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they dip a voter's thumb in purple dye to make sure they vote just once. We don't do that, but we ought to require ID.

OK, what kind of ID? Not everyone has a driver's license.

To Bubba's point:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/08/12/93467-denogean-state-relents-and-97-year-old-gets-to-vote/
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/15767573/91-year-old-cant-get-voter-id-because-of-line
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/22/id-recipient-gains-national-attention/

Bubba--MVA issues non-driver's license. That would be fine. Since you can register to vote at MVA, why not pick up an ID card while you are there! http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Services/Apply/id.htm

I just fail the need to make voting more difficult when fewer than half are citizens vote already and as long as lived in this country never heard of a single election being determined by people voting illegally. I've never even heard of any problems regarding people voting illegally.

Why are we taking steps to make voting more difficult instead of taking steps to make more people involved?

But, do look at the articles posted by Corbin. There are cases detailing the difficulty in getting picture IDs. And why not allow other picture IDs?

A voter photo ID system will not make a difference; current Maryland requirements are adequate for IDing an individual; and a new state-wide system will cost taxpayers millions to set-up, manage and maintain.

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) (http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp) researched voter fraud between 2000 and 2010. There was ballot stuffing (public officials), vote buying (private interests), voter registration schemes, and improper absentee votes - no ID issues there. 13 states permanently deny felons the right to vote even after they complete their sentences. The info was not coordinated with their elections systems, so felons voted. A significant amount of individual voter fraud that the RNLA found was voting in the wrong precinct, voting while ineligible (aliens), and double voting. The fact that they could register would indicate that they could get an ID. I found only one incidence of someone impersonating another voter and it was through an absentee ballot.

Most voting fraud would be resolved by improved state-wide registration, record keeping, monitoring, and enforcement; otherwise, photo IDs wouldn't work anyway. The politicians, pundits, and special interests know all of this, which is why I believe that their push for voter photo ID is a cynical effort to disenfranchise the 11% of Americans who do not have, and are not likely to obtain, a photo ID. This should not be a Party issue, it is about taking the vote away from Americans.

I imagine the local voters at the polling place who say whether or not they're intimidated.

Not sure what's racist about that.

"Just because a community didn't think the Klan was intimidating didn't mean it wasn't."

Fair enough criticism of my point. In this case mentioned above, the DOJ investigated the claims and dropped the case.

"Look at the core problem." I think we just disagree on what the core problem is. For you and others it is one thing, and for others it is something else.

For me, these sorts of practices are the bigger problem: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-11-29/news/bs-md-shurick-trial-20111129_1_schurick-doctrine-ehrlich-campaign-state-prosecutor-emmet-davitt

I am impressed with the number of people who have bought into the fear and rhetoric surrounding voter fraud. There is a concerted effort to make voting more difficult to accomplish. Somehow making it more difficult will eliminate fraud. However in nearly all documented cases of "fraud" a voter photo ID would not have made a difference.

In fact, in-person impersonation fraud — the only misconduct that photo ID rules could possibly prevent — has not been documented as a problem in any state. Most of the problems are due to poorly maintained voting rolls - a state function. The attempts to create laws to restrict voting with photo ID rules by politicians alleging massive fraud, where none has been proven, is simply a cynical attempt to make it more difficult to vote. The people most impacted by these new rules are the elderly and the poor. Who are they most likely to vote for? Who is trying to reduce their vote?

Besides significant additional costs to the state to manage and support photo ID rules, such rules would by necessity eliminate all non-military absentee balloting. In addition, if driver license photos are an indication of how accurately a photo matches what the person actually looks like, there will be significant interpretation of the photo by the poll worker having to make the comparison.

We don't need to fix the system because it ain't broken This is just a well-funded attempt to eliminate legitimate voters. That's a shame. Stop buying into the BS.

Silly me, I am one of those duped by the BS. But I would draw the line at 'eliminating' legitimate voters. That would be wrong.

Michael Brown has given us the Democratic Party Talking Points on photo ID laws. He demonizes its advocates by saying they cynically want to make voting more difficult. There are a lot of us who simply and correctly want to add more integrity to the voting process. Just because a problem has not been documented doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and shouldn't prevent common-sense improvements to voting. We're not asking people to prove they can read or to pay a tax. We're just trying to make sure they vote once and only once. Sure, we could dip thumbs in purple dye, but I'd prefer to show my photo ID.

"Just because a problem has not been documented doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and shouldn't prevent common-sense improvements to voting. We're not asking people to prove they can read or to pay a tax. We're just trying to make sure they vote once and only once."

It is an outrage that Montgomery County hasn't taken up the task of prohibiting pet Yetis. Hey, it may not be a documented problem, but it is only common sense that we should outlaw the possession of abominable snowmen as a pet. Anyone who owns one would be endangering the youth and elderly, as everyone knows the Yeti is an uncontrollable beast that becomes enraged easily, and has the strength of 10 men. I'm not asking everyone to prove they don't own a yeti - I'm just making sure they're not able to or going to.

Okay, CDM. Hahaha. The difference, of course is that Yetis don't exist. With voter fraud, it is entirely conceivable. Now, Michael Brown makes a valid point (maybe unintentionally), in that if we establish a voter ID law, it might shift voter fraud to vote absentee, where voter ID is harder (though not impossible) to administer. My original point is this: Democrats fight for anti-intimidations measures; Republicans fight for voter ID. Democrats fight for corporate campaign limits; Republicans fight for union card-check laws. If either side was interested in having their bills pass, they would combine them with the counterpart. They don't. They're trying to use laws to get a leg-up on re-election. Did you just read how Maryland (Democrats) lead the nation in gerrymandering? Both sides are shameful leaders.

The difference between something that is entirely conceivable but has no proof of existing and something that you consider non existent but has no proof of existing is zilch, zero, nada, from a policy perspective. It's a waste of time and money.

Just as you truly believe that fraudulent voters exist that would be prevented by a resonable ID law, I truly believe that Yetis exist that shouldn't be owned by my neighbors in Montgomery County with a reasonable "Anit Yeti Pet Law". Just as you dread to think that some fraudulent voters out there are ruining our democracy and escaping unseen into society, I dread to think my neighbor is housing an Abominable Snowman that may ruin my weekend by eating me whole, and then escape unseen into the white tundra.

Now you're just mocking me. I get it. Except that we're still frisking grandmas at TSA checkpoints because it's conceivable they could be sporting a bomb belt.

"Did you know that the Montgomery County Board of Elections has no process for removing voters from the role who are dead or moved out of the county?"

I chose to confirm it by emailing the board of elections: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/elections/index.asp

where I sent them that quote above and that I couldn't believe there was no process.

They responded with the following:

"There is a process for removing voters who have died. There is also a process for transferring people who have moved out of this county to another county in the state or have moved to another state. We do get a list every month about people who have died in the state of Maryland and we cancel them. If we hear from any family members or receive death certificates, the voters are cancelled."

That's interesting and I hope it didn't cause you too much trouble. It doesn't change the fact that what Daniel Grossberg said is false.

Oh, CDM, I couldn't disagree with you more. What Daniel Grossberg wrote is correct. Everyone should be involved in Election Integrity Maryland.

So then you think the county is lying when they say they have a process?

You asked "Did you know that the Montgomery County Board of Elections has *no process* for removing voters from the [roll] who are dead or moved out of the county?" The Board of Elections says the opposite. If you're going to level a serious charge like that, you need to back it up with facts or evidence. What "evidence to the contrary" do you have to level a serious charge such as that?

http://electionintegritymaryland.com/pressreleases

I have a process for losing weight... it doesn't mean I use it. They aren't liars for saying they have a process... they're liars (or at least hopeless dreamers) if they say it works.

I'll repeat: I'd take what they say with a grain of salt.

Regarding the attached press release from Election Integrity Maryland... you are free to think what you want about facts, evidence and motivation, but 5000 bad registrations in the first county they looked at doesn't bode well.

Thanks for clarifying.

That 5000 number is not great but it has to be put into context for it to mean anything.

According to http://elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/turnout/general/2010_General_Statewide.html

The total voter count in the last gubernatorial election was 294,604. 5000 bad registrations is about 1.7%. That's the highest impact it could possibly have, assuming (incredibly) all those 5000 votes were somehow impersonated. The actual total number of registered voters is about twice that at 573,431. So that means they've found less than 1% of the rolls have any problems. Feel free to correct my math.

"they're liars (or at least hopeless dreamers) if they say it works."

So a less than 1% error rate is not working to you? What error rate is acceptable?

Mark Twain said: "There are lies, damed lies and statistics." and I say that my friend CDM again misses the point.

Thanks for the "context" but your information is distracting. Nobody has (yet) claimed irregularities in a gubenatorial election. The research showed that in Montgomery County - the first county researched in MD - 7000 voter records from publicly available data were flagged for review and 5400 appear likely to be invalid.

You draw your own conclusion but my analysis is that preliminary numbers like this indicate our MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOE is either incompetent or corrupt.

CDM you strike me as someone who would like to be labeled "progressive." Why are you so attached to the status quo?

Can you elaborate on how my information is distracting? It shows that the number of problematic names on the voter rolls is of extremely low consequence, in the 1-2% range if they were all abused in aggregate. You seem to just be dismissing my numbers instead of explaining why they are inconsequential.

"The research showed that in Montgomery County - the first county researched in MD - 7000 voter records from publicly available data were flagged for review and 5400 appear likely to be invalid." So is that 5400 number likely to stay the same or shrink upon further review?

I should emphasize that my numbers, 573,431 on the rolls, 294,604 actually voting, which again are from http://elections.state.md.us/elections/2010/turnout/general/2010_General_Statewide.html , were the numbers for Montgomery County only. It may have sounded like I was implying that was for the entire State of Maryland.

I welcome seeing what EIM finds, but so far they haven't really shown anything substantial in Montgomery County, and it is hard to see how your opinion that "MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOE is either incompetent or corrupt" is justified. But I await a fuller explanation.

Just because Mark Twain said a phrase a long time ago doesn't make my math any less useful or informative. Whether or not I'm progressive has no bearing on what appropriate governmental policy is in regards to elections management. That sounds more like an ad hominem attack then some sort of useful discussion.

@Mr. Grossberg

I read your exhanges with CDM with amusement. This comes to mind:

"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension— a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone."

Let's hope you return safely.........

Here we go again with inflated figures. 30% of elderly don't have *valid* driver's licence? I would gladly concede that expired driver's licenses should be accepted for voting purposes. The elderly are voting, not driving.
Look---I 'm not saying that other problems don't exist. I'm saying that you shouldn't decline to add integrity to our voting process in this manner by pointing to other areas for improvement.