Voter Id And Suppressing Votes

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

 

 

Applewhite no longer has a copy of her birth certificate,

I had to replace mine several times..., you can even do it online....$9, fill out the form wait a week or so for it to come in the mail. 

 

Quite a bit easier and cheaper than for a copy of my original birth certificate hidden by sealed adoption birth certificate...BTW, Pa. (unlike Cali and most other forward thinking states) doesn't unseal anything without one hell of a fight....documents signed by both the adoptive parent and the most laughable bit the birth parents have to sign off as well...if they can even be be found from years old last known addresses and contact info. They couldn't find my parents and my adoptive parent refused to sign off...I had to wait until I spent two decades, thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to track down my birth parents to get it...the state still refuses to let me have a copy, but mom still had the original.

 

That the state requires folks to present documents that bare the same name as the applicant is...um....to be expected, pretty much a given...otherwise how do they know you are the person who actually belongs to those credentials. 

 

Where there is a will there is a way.  

 

And not one of those instances involves a person being unreasonably denied...not one of those situations is unresolvable with VERY little effort as in a couple forms and a couple of rather small fees (less than $50) paid out once.

 

The state worker suggested she take legal action to switch the ownership of her home to her maiden name, which she hasn't used in 60 years. Then, maybe, she will be allowed to vote in the November election.

LOL! Either dramatized for effect in the article or the "state worker " is a complete moron. 

 

But none of your examples involves folks presenting valid ID required to get a photo ID being denied.

 

The claims that birth certificates can't be had...well they're just that claims in every instance mentioned above the difficulty level of getting a valid birth certificate is far less than any of the folks in any of the examples had getting social security benefits.

 

A lot of "I didn't feel it was important to keep track of my credentials....why should I...it's not like I will ever need them " Call me stupid or anal or whatever if you wish, but I have EVERY legal document that has ever pertained to me. Why? Because at some point I or my wife might need them.

You receive a copy because, you should have one, which means at some point you may need it, which means they should be kept somewhere where they can be gotten too. 

 

 

 

However, as Cooper has gotten married since birth and her name has thus changed in the bargain, she was denied the ID, as she was unable to find and produce her marriage certificate to prove that she was who she said she was.

 

 

 

 

And while you threw question marks at my point about students in North Carolina, the fact still stands that the Voter ID law specifically prohibits students who do not have "full time residency" (over 1 year in a single location) from registering to vote no matter how much documentation they have about their citizenship. That would disenfranchise your daughter, who obviously did expend great effort in getting registered, but would find under the caprice of these laws she was unable to vote no matter what she did. It's not just old people.

My daughter...North Carolina? (I'm unclear either you are trying to use my daughter as an example or you are under the impression she is attending university there....BTW she's graduated. Gannon University for the first two years,  Edinboro University the last four)  And this affects their ability to vote in their home state how exactly?

 

You're insisting that everyone has all the same reasons to get an ID as you,  

 

Nope. They should have one because at some point they WILL need it....or at the very least having proper ID will save them aggravation.  Did you know that if a law enforcement officer asks to see ID and you don't have it, they can at THEIR discretion incarcerate you UNTIL they can determine you are who you claim to be. Did you know there are places that will not sell you guns, medications, provide medical treatment, allow you to borrow money, etc.  

 

Yeah I mentioned those before and you countered that because you can go to a loan shark to get money you don't need an ID, that because you could buy fire arms in a less than legal manner you don't need proper ID, etc.etc. Of course it is far from beneficial to do any of those things.

 

You mentioned that you don't need ID to cash checks or open a bank account there.....glad I don't live there..I prefer knowing my bank takes measures to protect what little I have like making sure the fella trying to get money out of my passbook account is actually me. I take comfort in the fact that even though the folks at the local branch and I know each other on a first name basis and they know my bike, my wife's car, and my dog on sight they still ask me to produce my license. 

 

Would suck for folk that are used to the way things are done there if they were to expect that it would be the same here.

Would suck for them if they were here enjoying the wineries and were to decide to visit the falls if they wanted to see them from the Canadian side as well....I imagine it as essential for a latino in any locale that borders Mexico to have every form of ID including photo to avoid being wrongly incarcerated.  

There are many many many excellent reasons to be able to as close to without a doubt as possible prove one's identity, just because I'm unable to cover them all doesn't mean they aren't valid or don't exist.

 

 

 

 is just as capable as you, 

Yup.

 

 

has no other obstacles than what you've experienced (something you continue to avoid addressing), 

Never said that. 

 

 

and therefore has no excuse.

Yup. 

 

I'm sure I'm missing something....easy enough to address after a breather.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

First you decry statistics, then you ask for them. Do you not see the contradiction here?

 

 

This strikes me as odd and contradictory as well. You say you are deserving of help, but then refuse to accept it. I guess that's OK if it's just you, but how fair is it to your family? What purpose does your refusal serve? Is the purpose/reason to justify looking down on those who accept help? To justify the position that no one deserves help? To justify a position that you shouldn't be expected to help people in need? Again, it is a logical fallacy to assert that if I can do it anyone can, let alone that I did it so everyone should be expected to.

 

1. Nope they seem to be the preferred language.  But....statics can be used to prove anything and disprove it at the same time using the same data. When they sort out a method that doesn't allow the results to be steered to the ________'s personal opinion they're hoping to prove they'll probably have to call it something else to avoid the stigma of the word statistics.

 

2. That everyone who should be able to get help from Uncle Sam actually is able to get it is a myth. I and my current mrs represent the few that are essentially told to **** off when we ask for assistance. The first time they told my mrs they wouldn't help she had four step children and four of her own she was supporting on minimum wage...their answer to her requests for help sell your car and live off that (doesn't matter that you need it to drive the 20+ miles to work), when that's gone sell your trailer (we don't care that the bank owns it) and live off that, then apply again. 

 

My first experience with them (with my first wife) sell your truck and live off of that. So I sold my truck and we still weren't doing any better $500 doesn't go very far...apply again...nope you make too much money... minimum wage as a temp didn't matter that the checks weren't steady, they went by the high ones. Finally just gave up.

 

Our most recent involvement...use up all of your savings, sell your car, sell your house and earn less and we'll think about helping you. 

 

It's not that we refuse help, it's not that we haven't asked for it, it's we've been denied it....it's down to paying bills instead of eating every day, but we are still managing to hang on and we will continue too regardless of whether we can get help or not. Where there is a will there is a way and those that have failed are those that gave up...period.

 

In case you were wondering...neighbor's wifi...and yes they know.  

Edited May 14, 2014 by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

[Turtle]

1. Nope they seem to be the preferred language.  But....statics can be used to prove anything and disprove it at the same time using the same data. When they sort out a method that doesn't allow the results to be steered to the ________'s personal opinion they're hoping to prove they'll probably have to call it something else to avoid the stigma of the word statistics.

That is simply a misunderstanding on your part. You don't question the statistics that are used to insure the heavy-duty bolt you bought really does have the breaking limit the manufacturer claims. Yet, it's the exact same math as used in the examples we've been citing. Clearly you're not changing your mind, but don't expect your arguments to hold any weight.

 

2. That everyone who should be able to get help from Uncle Sam actually is able to get it is a myth.

I and my current mrs represent the few that are essentially told to **** off when we ask for assistance. The first time they told my mrs they wouldn't help she had four step children and four of her own she was supporting on minimum wage...their answer to her requests for help sell your car and live off that (doesn't matter that you need it to drive the 20+ miles to work), when that's gone sell your trailer (we don't care that the bank owns it) and live off that, then apply again. 

 

My first experience with them (with my first wife) sell your truck and live off of that. So I sold my truck and we still weren't doing any better $500 doesn't go very far...apply again...nope you make too much money... minimum wage as a temp didn't matter that the checks weren't steady, they went by the high ones. Finally just gave up.

 

Our most recent involvement...use up all of your savings, sell your car, sell your house and earn less and we'll think about helping you. 

 

It's not that we refuse help, it's not that we haven't asked for it, it's we've been denied it....it's down to paying bills instead of eating every day, but we are still managing to hang on and we will continue too regardless of whether we can get help or not. Where there is a will there is a way and those that have failed are those that gave up...period.

 

 

In case you were wondering...neighbor's wifi...and yes they know.

Well all that really is a shame. And no, I'm not being a smart ***. I hope you get things better squared away.

 

No, I wasn't wondering about the net connect because there's plenty of free hot spots such as libraries, cafes, and the like.

 

Anyway, all your arguments to both Buffy and me are just more of the same kind of logical fallacies I have pointed out several times. Again, I don't expect you to do any changing there, but -again- you can't expect your arguments to carry any weight as far as the OP. We've been buds for quite a while and you know how I doggedly go after the facts. :dog: This discussion is no different to me than using logic and facts to show that a certain UFO could be a kite.

[CraigD]

To get a sound sense of the real law around it, I decided to make a non-lawlerly read of the US Constitution and its Amendments on the subject of, denying and abridging the right to vote, and courts’ interpretations of them.

 

Ratified 1791, Amendment 10 (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”), taken with the lack of mention of citizens voting in Constitution and the preceding amendments, says the States can make their own rules about who can and can’t vote.

 

Ratified 1878, Amendment 14 (“...... But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced ...”). says the States can make their own rules, but Congress can reduce their representation if they do in certain disagreeable ways.

 

(Ratified 1870) Amendment 15 (“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”),

(ratified 1920) Amendment 19 (“... on account of sex.”),

(ratified 1962) Amendment 24 (“... by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”),

and

(ratified 1971) Amendment 26: (“The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age”)

prohibit some kinds of State rules about who can and can’t vote.

 

So, there are fewer Constitutional restriction on how States can deny and abridge the right to vote than I first imagined. To make a few intentionally silly examples, There appears to be nothing in principle prohibiting a State from denying the vote to people who:

• Haven’t pass a “voter qualification” test
• Haven’t complete the 12th grade
• Haven’t earned a PhD
• Can’t run a mile is less than 7 minutes
• Don’t own at least 1 acre of land
• Don’t own at least 1,000 acre of land
• Don’t have at least $1,000,000 cash
• Don’t own a car
• Don’t own a gun.
• Do own a gun
• Do own a car
• Are or aren’t members of a given political party
• Didn’t win the right to vote in a lottery
• Don’t have a state-issued photo ID

etc.

 

Amendment 14 just says that a state with laws barring a sizable portion of 21+ year old men the right to vote get fewer Representatives in Congress.

 

In practice, courts interject their judges’ theories of jurisprudence to draw more from the Constitution than is literally in it. For example, the phrase “equal protection of the laws” appearing in the Article 13 Section 1 has long be interpreted to consider the right to vote a thing protected by laws, and thus reject most of the silly rules I made above. For example, in Apr 2014, District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that “Wisconsin's law requiring voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters and violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.” (source)

 

In a seemingly opposite conclusion, in 2008’s Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the SCOTUS upheld (by a 6 to 3 vote) an Indiana law requiring voters either present a photo ID at the poll or visiting a government office within 10 days of voting and sign a statement saying they can’t afford a photo ID, finding the law “closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.” (sources)

 

Politics and law are weird.

[Eclogite]

Is it not generally greed that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The difficulty lies in ensuring the benevolence.

[Turtle]

Is it not generally greed that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The difficulty lies in ensuring the benevolence.

I think you mean 'agreed', but greed is a funny typo. But yes, benevolence. Of the people, by the people, and for the people. The point of the OP is not whether the voter photo ID laws are legal, or how many people can't get photo ID, or how much voter fraud exists. The point is that a select group thinks they can keep another group from the poles by restrictive laws and so gain an advantage and circumvent democratic benevolence.

[Buffy]

First you say:

 

I had to replace [my birth certificate] several times..., you can even do it online....$9, fill out the form wait a week or so for it to come in the mail. 

 

...and then you say:

 

Quite a bit easier and cheaper than for a copy of my original birth certificate hidden by sealed adoption birth certificate...BTW, Pa. (unlike Cali and most other forward thinking states) doesn't unseal anything without one hell of a fight....documents signed by both the adoptive parent and the most laughable bit the birth parents have to sign off as well...if they can even be be found from years old last known addresses and contact info. They couldn't find my parents and my adoptive parent refused to sign off...I had to wait until I spent two decades, thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to track down my birth parents to get it...the state still refuses to let me have a copy, but mom still had the original.

 

That is, if you'd been in a state that requires an original (which several now do), you would have been disenfranchised for the 20 years it took you to get it.

 

My point exactly.

 

 

First you say:

 

And not one of those instances involves a person being unreasonably denied...not one of those situations is unresolvable with VERY little effort as in a couple forms and a couple of rather small fees (less than $50) paid out once.

 

...and then you say:

 

LOL! Either dramatized for effect in the article or the "state worker " is a complete moron.

 

Well if you'd read the article in full or checked other sources, you'd find it was the "moronic state worker" *following the law* as written. And I'm sure you would not want a state official to break the law. Well, maybe if there's a problem with the law....but I'll come back to that in a bit.

 

 On  states like Texas requiring exact matches:

 

That the state requires folks to present documents that bare the same name as the applicant is...um....to be expected, pretty much a given...otherwise how do they know you are the person who actually belongs to those credentials.

 

To clarify, Texas' law explicitly states "exact match" meaning if you had a middle name that didn't show up or was an initial on one and not the other, or you hyphenated your name, they'd all be rejected even if that picture was you in the photo and the address matched. With the divorce rate running what it is you'd be amazed at how many of us have to run around like crazy to deal with stuff like this. In a lot of states all you need is a marriage license to "legalize" switching to your married name, but in most states you need to get a separate court order to legally change your name back after a divorce, and you have to get your photo ID changed at the same time as you get your voter registration changed, with different departments and waiting times in between where some requests get lost and have to be reinitiated, and you can miss an election or two between all that. 

 

So sure, 

 

Where there is a will there is a way.

 

...but you may not be able to vote simply due to all of these timing issues not lining up.

 

 

My daughter...North Carolina? (I'm unclear either you are trying to use my daughter as an example or you are under the impression she is attending university there....BTW she's graduated. Gannon University for the first two years,  Edinboro University the last four)  And this affects their ability to vote in their home state how exactly?

 

I was only using your daughter as a hypothetical example to personalize the issue for you, and I'm sorry that continues to be unclear to you. I will depersonalize it in order to try to make it clearer:

 

My daughter goes to school in San Diego. Right now in order to vote in this November's election, she can pick up a card at a table on campus and mail it in for her apartment that she's moving into in August, and either show the card that comes with the sample ballot in the mail to vote in person or request vote by mail. Either way she gets to vote on a sales tax increase (that she has to pay) to promote public transit, and vote for one of her now-graduated classmates who's running for city council.

 

On the other hand, if she were going to school in North Carolina and decided to save money and live in the dorms, she would not be considered a "resident" there until she had a permanent address that was not a "shared address" like a dorm, and she would not be allowed to vote there at all even if local ballot initiatives affected her directly. And while California would let her vote here by absentee no questions asked (as long as I forwarded the ballot in time), there are 20 states that require explicit approval to obtain absentee ballots, and the way they are written, she would not be eligible to vote after this November because at that point she'd no longer be a resident, and NC would still not let her vote because she lived in the dorms, so her ONLY option would be to spend $500 to take the red eye back and forth and miss several days of classes simply in order to vote.

 

Sorry, that's disenfranchisement.

 

So,

 

I'm sure I'm missing something....easy enough to address after a breather.

 

 

...yah, you're missing the "intentional disenfranchisement" forest for the "easy to get an ID" trees.

 

There's no question that in our society, there are privileges and there are rights. If you want to drive a car, yes you need to get a license. If you want to just walk into a bank and not have to wait for personal approvals and other obstacles to get a bank account, it will save you time if you have an ID. 

 

But voting is a right of citizenship. If you're arrested, should you be required to show a photo ID in order not to be interrogated and tortured or be able to see a public defender? The fact is that the reason these laws are getting laughed out of court is precisely because they impose undue burden, just like the Jim Crow Poll Taxes and intelligence tests.

 

To answer Craig's post above, this burden is not in the constitution itself, but is in the Voting Rights Act and other laws that have already been affirmed by the Supreme Court. 

 

So it doesn't really matter if you think there's no burden based on your own personal experience or what you think you know, there are national laws to protect voting rights that have good reasons for being there. 

 

Despite this, the Republicans have found that they can use demographics to find laws to implement that skirt the limitations of the law of the land in an attempt to disenfranchise groups that typically do not vote Republican without actually saying "race" or "age" or "employment status."

 

That's the real problem here. Although you want to talk exclusively about "how easy it is to get an ID," the issue with these laws is that they are egregiously written to specifically to keep certain classes of eligible residents from voting, and has nothing to do with actually "verifying legal voting status," something that could A) be done more reasonably to deal with real world obstacles (whether or not they are moral failings as you prefer to imply), and   B ) don't actually solve any real-world problem, thus bringing into doubt why conservatives of all people would want to pay the extra taxes to fund the whole fiasco. 

 

I really don't expect to change your mind on this, so don't feel the need to respond. I'm mostly writing this for the folks reading this to know that there are reasons why your arguments fail to justify a requirement for Voter ID.

 

 

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less, :phones:

Buffy

[Deboer13]

The Conservative government in Canada is trying to do the same thing. They painted a picture of wide spread voter fraud with little or no evidence. There was quite a backlash, thankfully. They've watered down many of the provisions in the new election laws but people are skeptical and with good reason.

[Racoon]

How can anyone even argue that you don't need an ID to vote??

Thats just seriously asinine.

 

To cash a check, to rent a car, to rent a hotel room, to buy beer or cigarettes, to apply for a Job, to go to College, to go to the Hospital, to get on an Airplane, to get a prescription, to get a library card, etc. etc. ... You Need ID!

 

Its even so funny that the NAACP who claim having a Voter ID in order vote is discriminitory actually require ID to attend their event!!

You can't make this **** up.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/11/editorial-one-law-for-me-another-for-thee/

 

There are way too many Illegals, and way too many Fraudsters in this country to not support this. Proving you are of Legal age, and Alive, and legally able to vote is NOT an infringement on anyones rights.

If you can't Produce a simple iD, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

The few cases of Voter Fraud discovered may not necessarily reflect the actual occurance and scope of it..

 

And THEN you are trying to dismiss a law that will help PREVENT voter fraud if it might occur!!   :confused:

 

Seriously, If you can't get a simple ID then maybe you shouldn't be voting.. How in the hell is it limiting people? Which person who is a citizen, of age, can't aquire a valid ID?  If you can't scrape together $20 and get to a DMV and get an ID, then what does that tell you about the 'Potential Voter' ??

Thats assuming you don't get a ballot mailed to your address and handle it that way.

 

I don't buy that nonsense for a minute. There are too many Illegals and Fraudsters to say "Hey! Open booths, no-need to prove who you say you might be"

 

I even support reinstituting a Felon's right to vote after serving their sentence and probabtion period, and become in Good Standing with the community again. I think after a grace period their Voting Rights should be given back to them.

 

OMFG. Buffy, I Iove your intelligence, but your polictics are way-way too liberal. Maybe Berkley had too much of a progressive brainwashing effect.

And Turtle?? I know you. :frown:

 

Don't need an ID to vote?? HA!

We are in ****ing LaLa land.

 

And if possible, Please show us an example of ONE other Democratic country that doesn't have Voter ID laws??  and lets examine that country and compare it to ours..

 

Rac out.. :dog:

Edited May 30, 2014 by Racoon

[LaurieAG]

Don't need an ID to vote?? HA!

We are in ****ing LaLa land.

 

And if possible, Please show us an example of ONE other Democratic country that doesn't have Voter ID laws??  and lets examine that country and compare it to ours.

 

How about Australia where voting is compulsory but no ID is required.

 

From 2008 to 2010 I received 2 letters from the Electoral Commission requesting that I bring the letter in with me next time I voted.

 

The strange thing was I never voted at all during that period. 

[Turtle]

How can anyone even argue that you don't need an ID to vote??

Thats just seriously asinine.

...

And Turtle?? I know you. :frown:

...

Rac out.. :dog:

And I you. I never fail to be dismayed by the contradiction between your touted Buddhist ideals and your bigoted conspiratorial rants. Frown indeed. :frown:

[Buffy]

I actually am still registered Republican, although haven't seen a Republican I'd vote for since...oh that'd make me sound old... Its a family thing like being Jewish. My grandmother refused to donate money to the Republicans from the day they put the anti-abortion plank in their platform back during Reagan's first run.

 

But we've swept so far to the right that no one is considered "middle-of-the-road" anymore, just like the rapidly disappearing middle class. And what's sad is that most of the passions generated about Voter ID are all about misdirection: getting people who are feeling oppressed to think that the problem is "the scary other" and not the oligarchs who are actually the ones sucking the wealth out of the middle class.

 

Honest, no one's going to get back the lost equity in their house by making sure that grandmas, students and poor (read dark-skinned) people don't vote by demanding their "Papers, please."

 

 

I also always find it funny that the folks who rail most about restrictions on the right to own guns have no problem abridging the completely non-qualified (as opposed to all that "well-regulated militia" stuff) right to vote.

 

Some people are really good at making up their own Constitution.

 

 

"When I use the Constitution," said the Tea Party Caterpillar, "it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more & no less." :phones:

Buffy

[Racoon]

And I you. I never fail to be dismayed by the contradiction between your touted Buddhist ideals and your bigoted conspiratorial rants. Frown indeed. :frown:

 

Because Not everyone who is in present bodily form in this country is entitled to Vote.

 

Many young men died to preserve the Priveledge to vote. It also requires that you be of 18 years, and be a Citizen.

 

Alot of people don't vote, when they should..

And Some Illegal Mexican, or whom ever, should NOT be able to.. Despite ever more liberal laws that give them Drivers Licenses, and Chit..

 

And if you try to make sure that the Voting is Legit, by requesting an actual ID, then Thats when you squash any potential Voter ID Fraud.

 

I could probably go look up some ID fraud cases and post a dozen links...

 

But WHY on earth would you  Not require and ID if a fair and honest election is what you are after??

[Racoon]

I repeated myself.. Sorry.. I just seriously don't understand the logic from the other side.

 

I'll look into some voter fraud, because I know it happenes more often than generally reported..Especially under the pathological lying administration we are under..  

 

Australia was mentioned. And a very interesting place indeed.  LaurieAG.

[Eclogite]

And if possible, Please show us an example of ONE other Democratic country that doesn't have Voter ID laws??  and lets examine that country and compare it to ours..

I imagine the UK has voter  ID laws, but to actually vote I just turn up at the polling station with my poll card that has been sent to me in the mail and hand it over. If I have misplaced it I just tell the officials who I am and where I live; they check the name and address on a list, then cross the name off the list and give me my ballot paper.

 

In short, I have never had to identify myself to vote in the UK in European elections, General Elections, Elections for the Scottish Parliament, or Local Elections. There maybe, indeed must be some laws on the matter, but they do not seem to require that I identify myself. Do you think all our elections must, therefore, be rigged?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

 

Honest, no one's going to get back the lost equity in their house by making sure that grandmas, students and poor (read dark-skinned) people don't vote by demanding their "Papers, please."

Seriously...? (sorry....no idea where to start to begin to respond to this...address the delusion that the poorest are one specific color or any other shade except "white"..... or....?)

[Turtle]

Seriously...? (sorry....no idea where to start to begin to respond to this...address the delusion that the poorest are one specific color or any other shade except "white"..... or....?)

How about beginning with the facts.

 

 Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity

Location White Black Hispanic Other Total

 

United States 13% 35% 33% 22% 20%

 

Alabama 15% 37% 45% NSD 22%

Alaska 15% NSD 18% 34% 20%

Arizona 13% 24% 36% 34% 23%

Arkansas 18% 48% 38% 34% 24%

California 13% 35% 33% 19% 23%

Colorado 11% 32% 32% 25% 17%

Connecticut 10% 30% 32% 14% 15%

Delaware 12% 32% 41% 15% 19%

District of Columbia 6% 39% 23% 19% 24%

Florida 13% 36% 29% 24% 21%

Georgia 15% 33% 36% 19% 22%

Hawaii 15% NSD 37% 25% 24%

Idaho 15% NSD 36% 34% 19%

Illinois 12% 34% 30% 22% 19%

Indiana 17% 43% 25% 38% 20%

Iowa 12% 38% 25% 23% 14%

Kansas 12% 40% 42% 28% 18%

Kentucky 19% 38% 47% 36% 22%

Louisiana 17% 44% 35% NSD 26%

Maine 15% NSD NSD 23% 16%

Maryland 10% 23% 20% 14% 15%

Massachusetts 11% 29% 41% 16% 16%

Michigan 14% 39% 39% 21% 19%

Minnesota 9% 43% 37% 23% 13%

Mississippi 16% 44% NSD NSD 27%

Missouri 15% 37% 41% 26% 19%

Montana 15% NSD 47% 38% 18%

Nebraska 9% 40% 31% 35% 14%

Nevada 15% 34% 29% 24% 21%

New Hampshire 10% NSD NSD 17% 11%

New Jersey 9% 31% 30% 12% 16%

New Mexico 16% NSD 33% 44% 27%

New York 14% 33% 37% 26% 22%

North Carolina 13% 34% 36% 30% 21%

North Dakota 8% NSD NSD 42% 13%

Ohio 15% 40% 42% 32% 19%

Oklahoma 15% 35% 36% 24% 20%

Oregon 16% NSD 39% 19% 19%

Pennsylvania 13% 36% 40% 33% 18%

Rhode Island 12% 38% 41% 26% 18%

South Carolina 17% 36% 37% NSD 23%

South Dakota 11% NSD 37% 52% 16%

Tennessee 18% 37% 35% 27% 22%

Texas 12% 29% 33% 14% 23%

Utah 11% NSD 34% 31% 15%

Vermont 13% NSD NSD 37% 14%

Virginia 11% 29% 19% 18% 16%

Washington 12% 35% 28% 19% 16%

West Virginia 20% NSD NSD NSD 21%

Wisconsin 11% 41% 39% 33% 16%

Wyoming 12% NSD 26% 31% 14%