Show photo i.d. To vote

[Dickieboy]

BUT, and this is INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, many of the voter ID laws do not just require a photo ID. They tack on all sorts of other requirements designed to manipulate who is going to end up voting.

So, the short version of the story is that if you think you support your state's current or proposed voter ID law, go look up the text of it right now.

Do you know of any one specifically? I would like to read them as I have read a dozen or so of the 33 and have not seen anything of the 'tacked' on stuff.

Thx

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

I think everyone should get a free voter ID, and that if they can't come to the elections office a mobile election office should come to them. However, even this will not satisfy the opponents of voter IDs because they can't state their real problem without being embarrassed. Please allow me to speculate. I think the real problem may be that some Democrats have troubled relations with authority, and are afraid the process of voter identification will result in their apprehension on outstanding warrants or other problems with law enforcement. What other possibility could there be if voter IDs are free and if the election office comes to the voters?

 

[teamosil]

Do you know of any one specifically? I would like to read them as I have read a dozen or so of the 33 and have not seen anything of the 'tacked' on stuff.

Actually it is pretty rare that they don't have something tacked on. What state are you in? If they have a voter ID law, lets look at that one.

But, just for an example, Texas's proposed voter ID law accepts a concealed carry permit as ID, but not a student ID. Clearly that is because the incumbents believe that people who get concealed carry permits are far more likely to vote for them than students are.

Here is a list for all the states- Voter ID: State Requirements

Look at how much they vary from state to state. Each state is tweaking the requirements to try to get different election results out of it. Many of the tweaks sound reasonable when you just look at them in isolation, but when you realize that each of them is basically picking say 10 types of ID to accept out of a list of about 100 valid forms of ID, it's pretty obvious what they're doing. And they're consistently picking the ones that favor whichever party is incumbent. Red states are accepting concealed carry permits, blue states are accepting college IDs. Red states are limiting it to IDs issued by that state, blue states are accepting federal IDs and/or IDs from other states. Etc. It's the new frontier of gerrymandering.

 

[washunut]

I think everyone should get a free voter ID, and that if they can't come to the elections office a mobile election office should come to them. However, even this will not satisfy the opponents of voter IDs because they can't state their real problem without being embarrassed. Please allow me to speculate. I think the real problem may be that some Democrats have troubled relations with authority, and are afraid the process of voter identification will result in their apprehension on outstanding warrants or other problems with law enforcement. What other possibility could there be if voter IDs are free and if the election office comes to the voters?

This isn't an issue about voter ID. Holder and Obama need to make sure they get out the vote of their base. After neglecting the base he now has to drum up the boogieman of a bigoted Republican party. Funny Republicans can't mention Rev Wright or the folks at CNN will say shame on you, but Holder can essentially call Republicans racists and news stations report it as if it were fact.

 

[teamosil]

I think everyone should get a free voter ID, and that if they can't come to the elections office a mobile election office should come to them. However, even this will not satisfy the opponents of voter IDs because they can't state their real problem without being embarrassed. Please allow me to speculate. I think the real problem may be that some Democrats have troubled relations with authority, and are afraid the process of voter identification will result in their apprehension on outstanding warrants or other problems with law enforcement. What other possibility could there be if voter IDs are free and if the election office comes to the voters?

If it rains on election day, turnout drops about 50%. You think a ton of people are going to go wait in line at the DMV or wherever for a day to get a new ID they don't need for any reason other than to vote? Hardly... So, when they tweak the law to prevent people with a particular form of ID from voting, it doesn't really matter that in theory they could go get a new ID. In reality, the number of people from that group who turn out to vote will drop off dramatically. That's election fraud.

Let me give you a counter example. Driver's licenses from the state in which you live with your current address are something your typical Republican almost certainly has. Rural people have to drive everywhere, so they all have driver's licenses. Republicans are probably less likely to move around the country a lot, so they're very likely to have an ID from the state in which they live, and they're often more settled down in a house, so the address is more often up to date. So, requiring a driver's license from that state with your current address doesn't really create a barrier to Republicans voting. But, not everybody is living that lifestyle. People in big cities often don't get driver's licenses and they often move frequently both between states and within states because in cities you more often rent rather than buy and people in big cities often move around the country pursuing career opportunities that are more national than local.

So, lets reverse it. Say that we set up a voter ID law that requires that instead of a driver's license, you have to present a bus or subway pass to vote. The same arguments would apply. If the folks who don't have bus or subway passes want to vote, they could just go buy one. In fact, it's much easier than getting a photo ID. But, in practice, way more Democrats have bus and subway passes already. So, in reality, that law would mean that Democrats would win every election. At least enough Republicans would be too lazy to go get a bus pass that they couldn't win elections really in any state anymore. On top of that, the Republicans would have to divert huge amounts of their campaign spending to helping Republicans get out to get bus passes, as the Democrats are having to do now to get people out to get driver's licenses. It would be massive election fraud.

Well, this is the same thing in reverse.

 

[jimbo]

Because Michigan law states that if a person signs an affidavit in lieu of providing an ID their vote is subject to being challenged.

As it should. So does Virginia's law. Do you want persons to just walk in, state "I am Jimbo" and allow me to vote just because I say who I am? That is the purpose of a photo ID.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

This isn't an issue about voter ID. Holder and Obama need to make sure they get out the vote of their base. After neglecting the base he now has to drum up the boogieman of a bigoted Republican party. Funny Republicans can't mention Rev Wright or the folks at CNN will say shame on you, but Holder can essentially call Republicans racists and news stations report it as if it were fact.

Good post.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

If it rains on election day, turnout drops about 50%. You think a ton of people are going to go wait in line at the DMV or wherever for a day to get a new ID they don't need for any reason other than to vote? Hardly... So, when they tweak the law to prevent people with a particular form of ID from voting, it doesn't really matter that in theory they could go get a new ID. In reality, the number of people from that group who turn out to vote will drop off dramatically. That's election fraud.

Let me give you a counter example. Driver's licenses from the state in which you live with your current address are something your typical Republican almost certainly has. Rural people have to drive everywhere, so they all have driver's licenses. Republicans are probably less likely to move around the country a lot, so they're very likely to have an ID from the state in which they live, and they're often more settled down in a house, so the address is more often up to date. So, requiring a driver's license from that state with your current address doesn't really create a barrier to Republicans voting. But, not everybody is living that lifestyle. People in big cities often don't get driver's licenses and they often move frequently both between states and within states because in cities you more often rent rather than buy and people in big cities often move around the country pursuing career opportunities that are more national than local.

So, lets reverse it. Say that we set up a voter ID law that requires that instead of a driver's license, you have to present a bus or subway pass to vote. The same arguments would apply. If the folks who don't have bus or subway passes want to vote, they could just go buy one. In fact, it's much easier than getting a photo ID. But, in practice, way more Democrats have bus and subway passes already. So, in reality, that law would mean that Democrats would win every election. At least enough Republicans would be too lazy to go get a bus pass that they couldn't win elections really in any state anymore. On top of that, the Republicans would have to divert huge amounts of their campaign spending to helping Republicans get out to get bus passes, as the Democrats are having to do now to get people out to get driver's licenses. It would be massive election fraud.

Well, this is the same thing in reverse.

Good post, but I still am amused by the idea that most Democrats have outstanding warrants and are deterred from getting a voter ID.

Btw, both people from the city and beyond the city need picture IDs for something. If voter IDs are free and brought to them wouldn't that work, or are they still afraid of contact with authority. Those rascally Democrats!

 

[rocket88]

What other possibility could there be if voter IDs are free and if the election office comes to the voters?

That sounds great, except that it's based on your dream scenario. Since that doesn't exist and we have to vote in the real world, it ain't that easy.

I think the real problem may be that some Democrats have troubled relations with authority, and are afraid the process of voter identification will result in their apprehension on outstanding warrants or other problems with law enforcement.

So your speculation is that Democrats are criminals? No Republican ever violated a law? That's the kind of hyper-partisan BS that makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

 

[teamosil]

Btw, both people from the city and beyond the city need picture IDs for something.

I agree. That is why I am ok with just requiring a photo ID and leave it at that. It is all the additional requirements that many states' politicians are tacking on that make it election fraud. Accept all photo ID, like banks and HHS and employers and everybody else does, and it's not a huge problem. But virtually no states are doing that. Of those with voter ID laws, they almost all were unable to resist the temptation to start deciding that they will accept this ID and not that one. And they're all doing it to favor the incumbent party.

If voter IDs are free and brought to them wouldn't that work

I don't think that solves it. Anything that requires the person to do something before election day means that less people in that situation will have done it by election day. Some states have proposed things like that- a mobile service that will provide IDs. But it's just an attempt to get around the legal concerns with a technicality. Who is really going to go digging around in various state government websites and set up an appointment for some mobile ID van to come by? Most people will just think "meh, I'll just go down to the DMV next week"... And then they're busy that week, so they figure they'll do it the week after that... And then they put it off another week. And then they forget about it for a few weeks... And pretty soon it's election day and they haven't gotten the new ID.

As long as a voter ID law erects more hurdles one group needs to clear in order to vote than it puts in front of another group, it is tampering with the election results. And from what I've seen, practically all the voter ID laws do that, always in ways that favor whichever party currently holds the majority.

It is the same thing as gerrymandering. It is breathtaking how dramatically you can determine the results of elections by drawing the lines one way or the other. In theory, you can gerrymander any state such that 25% of the population will win the majority in every election. It is absolutely commonplace that the party drawing the lines will get a 10% bump or so with some clever line drawing. And there is always some clever guy who can figure out how to make it sound like that's just a coincidence and they really drew the map based on some kind of neutral sounding principle. It is a total nightmare for democracy. But there isn't really a good, clear cut, way to avoid it. There isn't a sound, objective, way to draw the maps, so every state struggles with it. The Republicans take the majority and bam, they gerrymander the state to give them a 10% bump. Then the Democrats eventually take it back and bam, they gerrymander it back the other way. It's been a plague on our country for 100+ years and we can't figure out how to get the genie back in the bottle.

These tricky voter ID laws are the next gerrymandering and we're in the process of letting the genie out of the bottle as we speak. Going forward, first thing whenever either party takes the majority in a state, they're going to go through and make all kinds of innocuous seeming little tweaks to the voter ID law and they'll get their 10% bump in the elections. "Oh, we've decided not to accept medicare cards anymore, but we're going to start accepting student IDs. Oh gosh, I didn't notice that students are far more likely to vote for me than the other guy..." Redistricting is already problematic enough. IMO, we're being idiots to open up a whole other frontier of that kind of election manipulation with voter ID laws. Nationwide we really just ought to all come together- both parties- to say that all they can require is a photo ID- any photo ID issued by a government or school. This is our only chance to cut the problem off at the pass before it gets out of control like gerrymandering has.

 

[Fiddytree]

such an ID costs money, which makes it very similar to a poll-tax.

thereby unConstitutional.

Argue in your state for discounts to those in need, free IDs to those under a certain income (also fight for making the process to obtain free ID easier), and/or overall lower costs of the ID. You won't win on the purely free or nothing platform. Be sensible. As New York's starting price before discounts/free offers is, what? $9, I don't particularly sympathize.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

...
So your speculation is that Democrats are criminals? No Republican ever violated a law? That's the kind of hyper-partisan BS that makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

Relax........it was a joke.

 

[Mason66]

Actually it is pretty rare that they don't have something tacked on. What state are you in? If they have a voter ID law, lets look at that one.

But, just for an example, Texas's proposed voter ID law accepts a concealed carry permit as ID, but not a student ID. Clearly that is because the incumbents believe that people who get concealed carry permits are far more likely to vote for them than students are.

Here is a list for all the states- Voter ID: State Requirements

Look at how much they vary from state to state. Each state is tweaking the requirements to try to get different election results out of it. Many of the tweaks sound reasonable when you just look at them in isolation, but when you realize that each of them is basically picking say 10 types of ID to accept out of a list of about 100 valid forms of ID, it's pretty obvious what they're doing. And they're consistently picking the ones that favor whichever party is incumbent. Red states are accepting concealed carry permits, blue states are accepting college IDs. Red states are limiting it to IDs issued by that state, blue states are accepting federal IDs and/or IDs from other states. Etc. It's the new frontier of gerrymandering.

Do you think it might have to do with who issues the ID and how easy it is to forge?

Who issuses student IDs? Doesn't the school? If that is so than I would think students are running the equipment that issues the IDs, free labor and all.

Why would you jump to the conclusion that the bill is trying to manipulate the voters?

 

[Mason66]

If it rains on election day, turnout drops about 50%. You think a ton of people are going to go wait in line at the DMV or wherever for a day to get a new ID they don't need for any reason other than to vote? Hardly... So, when they tweak the law to prevent people with a particular form of ID from voting, it doesn't really matter that in theory they could go get a new ID. In reality, the number of people from that group who turn out to vote will drop off dramatically. That's election fraud.

Let me give you a counter example. Driver's licenses from the state in which you live with your current address are something your typical Republican almost certainly has. Rural people have to drive everywhere, so they all have driver's licenses. Republicans are probably less likely to move around the country a lot, so they're very likely to have an ID from the state in which they live, and they're often more settled down in a house, so the address is more often up to date. So, requiring a driver's license from that state with your current address doesn't really create a barrier to Republicans voting. But, not everybody is living that lifestyle. People in big cities often don't get driver's licenses and they often move frequently both between states and within states because in cities you more often rent rather than buy and people in big cities often move around the country pursuing career opportunities that are more national than local.

So, lets reverse it. Say that we set up a voter ID law that requires that instead of a driver's license, you have to present a bus or subway pass to vote. The same arguments would apply. If the folks who don't have bus or subway passes want to vote, they could just go buy one. In fact, it's much easier than getting a photo ID. But, in practice, way more Democrats have bus and subway passes already. So, in reality, that law would mean that Democrats would win every election. At least enough Republicans would be too lazy to go get a bus pass that they couldn't win elections really in any state anymore. On top of that, the Republicans would have to divert huge amounts of their campaign spending to helping Republicans get out to get bus passes, as the Democrats are having to do now to get people out to get driver's licenses. It would be massive election fraud.

Well, this is the same thing in reverse.

Obviously not everybody has a drivers license. I would be willing to bet the law would read drivers license or state issued ID card, which is the same as a drivers license without the driving priveldge. Most people have one or the other.

 

[mac]

And indeed that is what I have done every single election since I registered some 40 years ago when I fill out the short form they give me and provide my signature and they compare it to the one on the card copy they have in the book.

Problem served without any photo ID.

would you like to see the same policy for cashing checks at your local bank?

 

[Dickieboy]

OH the irony:

NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID - Katie Pavlich

 

[BWG]

In Texas IDs are obtained at the state department of public safety (DPS) offices and they have offices in almost all counties and cities in the state.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'almost'. 80 Texas counties don’t have an office (that's 'almost' a 1/3).

 

[BWG]

Either you are lying,work only for friends or relatives or you have not had a new job since 1986.
EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS The Immigration Reform and Control Act, 1986 - Public Law 99-603 requires all employers to verify proof of identity and employment eligibility through proper identification Any employee hired after November 6, 1
The new immigration law requires that all employees hired after November 6, 1986, must provide proof of identity and employment eligibility.

Notice how many different forms of ID is accepted.

And right there in List B is this little gem......Voter’s registration card.

 

[BWG]

Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections

47,000 UFO sightings

441 Americans killed by lightning

13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation

:lol:

 

[ttwtt78640]

I guess that depends on your definition of 'almost'. 80 Texas counties don’t have an office (that's 'almost' a 1/3).

In those 80 counties are there statistically less licensed drivers? I doubt that very much, since driving is MORE of a necessity in these rural and remote locations, as there is no "public option". The hardship factor of obtaining an ID once every 6 to 12 years is far overblown.

 

[radcen]

In the last few pages you have made some very good points. I especially like, and have even said myself at times, that *what* we allow for as legitimate ID needs to be more honest and real. Fact is, some politicians do indeed cherry-pick specific forms of ID, and disallow others, precisely to skew election results in their desired direction. That crap simply needs to stop.

On to other things... I do have to ask about this sentence.

Anything that requires the person to do something before election day means that less people in that situation will have done it by election day.

I'm taking this statement literally and at face value. I interpret it as saying that if the voter has to do *anything*... including even registering to vote to begin with... that that is considered a barrier. If I am interpreting this correctly, then my question is: At what point does concern for the voter slip into absurdity? At what point does some of the responsibility of voting simply lie on the shoulders of the voter?

 

[rocket88]

Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections

47,000 UFO sightings

441 Americans killed by lightning

13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation

:lol:

I'd like to see the source, but I do agree that the cases in which ID would prevent voter fraud represent an extremely small number.

Do we need a law to address such a small number? Or since it's States, do we need 54 (counting DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam)?

 

[haymarket]

would you like to see the same policy for cashing checks at your local bank?

I cash checks all the time around here without providing any photo ID when I cash them.

 

[haymarket]

Very clever, first deny that ANY voter fraud exists, when that fails, assert that voter fraud is not "signifcant", when that fails, assert ID requirements cause "disenfranchisment", when that fails, explain that it does not apply to ANY other required use of the same ID that you assert (yet can not prove) is nearly impossible for some to attain, but ONLY for voting, as THE SAME IDs for any other use are off topic. Hmm...

Where did I DENY that ANY voter fraud exists?

 

[haymarket]

You're moving the goal posts. The claim was that the evidence of voter fraud is overwhelming. Not that it was pertaining to IDs specifically. But even so, here are two lists of examples of dead people voting in droves, etc: 1, 2.

To pretend this isn't happening RAMPANTLY is disingenuous in the extreme. Obama comes from a group that has made a career out of defrauding the system (ACORN). And to pretend that anyone involved here is being unfairly screwed over by having to get a $5 ID (or, free in every instance I'VE ever witnessed) is laughable.

NO. It is you who are moving the goal posts. Let us look ant what we have from the side you are on

1- we need strong voter ID laws for voters in public elections
2- we need these because there is a significant problem of voter fraud in public elections
3- you can demonstrate no significant problem of voter fraud in public elections when repeatedly challenged to present any
4- when you do provide an example of what you call voter fraud it could not have been prevented with the same voter ID laws that you are advocating we adopt

You have no reason provided to support your premise and when you attempt to come up with something it fails to achieve the purpose of the very law you advocate for.