Democrats & Voter ID

[dgs49]

You might note that Scooter's "evidence" that a government voter ID will not be provided for free is the following: "No, it won't."

There are close to a dozen such laws being considered around the country, and the only reason any fee is even contemplated is because the Democrat politicians in those states want to cling to the faint hope that a $5 fee (or whatever) will be sufficient to get the USSC to eventually overturn the law. (After some hand-picked woman judge declares it unconstitutional at the state level).

But rest assured, the Republicans are not that stupid. The ID cards will be provided for free. And for scooter's information a nominal fee will not be sufficient to kill such a law anyway.

Gob, my point is that there is no legitimate reason to oppose a requirement for photo identification at the voting polls. The only real reasons are to keep alive the hope for voter fraud and to ensure that the marginally competent people in old folks homes, etc., can continue to be bussed and vanned to the polls from their convalescent centers, to vote the straight Democrat ticket.

It is time-honored tradition.

[Jarlaxle]

Voting should require photo ID. Registering to vote should also require a photo ID. Anyone without photo ID should not be allowed to vote. Vote fraud of any kind should be punished with death.

[Rick]

So your answer is yes, you agree that federal law does not require photo ID.

Thank you.

Ability to identify oneself is one thing. As demonstrated by the federal voter registration instructions you so kindly provided, there are plenty of ways to do that without having to shell out money for photo ID.

And yes, if someone is being forced to pay out money in order to vote, that's a poll tax.

Actually neither does Arkansas, it just require ID...

[Rick]

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16602

Currently only 14 states require photo ID...

[Scooter]

You might note that Scooter's "evidence" that a government voter ID will not be provided for free is the following: "No, it won't."

My evidence is that you have not produced any legislation mandating photo ID to vote which will provide for no-charge ID for those who have no other acceptable photo ID.

For example, the great state of Alabama, which 57 years after Brown v. Board of Ed hasn't yet managed to purge its Constitution of language mandating segregated schools, has managed to find the time to pass a law mandating a photo ID requirement for voters.

How much does a non-driver photo ID cost in Alabama? Surprisingly, the same as a driver's licence - $23.50.

But rest assured, the Republicans are not that stupid. The ID cards will be provided for free.

See above.

And for scooter's information a nominal fee will not be sufficient to kill such a law anyway.

I believe I already said that the SCOTUS as currently composed would not see fit to overturn the 21st century version of a poll tax, even if that is exactly what it is.

The only real reasons are to keep alive the hope for voter fraud...

What voter fraud? If proponents of these measures had the slightest bit of evidence to demonstrate that the lack of a photo ID requirement has led to voter fraud, do you imagine for one second that they would not have waved it like a bloody shirt for all to see?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that they have not, is that the voter fraud justification is a canard used to suck in the stupid.

...and to ensure that the marginally competent people in old folks homes, etc., can continue to be bussed and vanned to the polls from their convalescent centers, to vote the straight Democrat ticket.

So you admit that one of the purposes of these initiatives is to prevent otherwise eligible voters from making it to the polls, if they are likely to vote Democrat. Thanks for the honesty.

[Rick]

Of the 14, 7 are strict adherence (although 3 are still waiting on DOJ renderings).

Of those 7, 2 are blue states...

[Scooter]

None of these things have been passed by Democratic legislatures. At least let's acknowledge whose agenda this is.

[Rick]

None of these things have been passed by Democratic legislatures. At least let's acknowledge whose agenda this is.

You'll have to do the homework on that one.

Bottom line it doesn't bother me and it shouldn't affect your voting privileges...

[Scooter]

Of course it doesn't bother you. You're not the target that someone is trying to disenfranchise.

At least, not yet...

[BoSoxGal]

If you are like me & don't know the fancy tricks available in the board software to 'name' or shorten you link, here is a place to do it that is 'no-brainer' level:

http://tinyurl.com/

Please use this. I am reading largely on my iPhone now & it is harder than ever to make sense of posts that have exceeded the Board margins because of an oversized link.

Thanks; we now return you to your regularly schedule debate - which I would likely really enjoy if I could read it.

[Rick]

Of course it doesn't bother you. You're not the target that someone is trying to disenfranchise.

At least, not yet...

Carp----it's no more a poll tax than herding folks onto a church bus is a bribe.

I did notice you acknowledged that it didn't bother me however failed to include how it infringed on your voting privileges...

[Lord Jim]

My evidence is that you have not produced any legislation mandating photo ID to vote which will provide for no-charge ID for those who have no other acceptable photo ID.

Requiring Iowa voters to show a photo identification at the polls is a common sense safeguard against voter fraud — if state lawmakers craft the measure in a way that does not place an undue burden on voters.

A bill, House File 8, that cleared the House State Government Committee last week, appears to be on the right track. It requires voters to present a valid photo ID when voting or when registering to vote at the polling place. It also would require voters who cast absentee ballots at the auditor’s office or a satellite early voting station to present ID.

A good amendment added to the bill in committee would allow low-income Iowans to get a state ID card at no charge. And voters who show up at the polls without an ID could cast a provisional ballot reviewed later by a precinct board.

http://thegazette.com/2011/01/26/a-reas ... safeguard/

As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, under the new Wisconsin law people would be allowed to vote only after showing Wisconsin driver's licenses, state-issued ID cards, certain very limited student IDs, military IDs, passports, naturalization certificates or IDs issued by a tribe based in Wisconsin. The state would issue free IDs for those lacking one of the approved cards. Those living in retirement homes, nursing homes and institutions would be exempt from the law, as would victims of stalking and those who opposed having their photos taken for religious reasons.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/art ... nchise-vo/

Indiana has conducted six successful elections since the implementation of the law without one recorded instance of a voter that could not vote due to the requirement. Indiana’s citizens overwhelmingly supported the law as a simple measure designed to prevent vote fraud and thereby protect the integrity of the vote. Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa conducted a poll in March 2005 which found that 75 percent of the 1,003 Hoosiers surveyed support requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID. A year later, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal conducted a national survey and found that 81 percent of the country favored the requirement that voters produce a valid photo ID when they go to vote.

Does Indiana make photo IDs free to anyone who needs them?

* Yes, Indiana's voter identification law requires that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles provide free photo identification to citizens who do not already have identification that will suffice (i.e. an Indiana Driver's license or U.S. Passport). The law has built in exceptions for groups who are likely to have difficulty ascertaining photo identification to vote (see above).

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/2811.htm

Under the bill approved by the Republican-controlled House, vot­ers must bring a driver’s license, pass­port, mil­i­tary ID or other photo ID to the polls in order to cast a bal­lot. Under cur­rent law, vot­ers only have to present a voter reg­is­tra­tion card that does not include a photo. About 178,000 vot­ers in South Car­olina don’t have driver’s licenses or DMV-issued photo IDs, accord­ing to the State Elec­tion Commission.

The bill pro­vides for free IDs for those who do not have them.

http://thevotingnews.com/state/south-ca ... s-id-bill/

If you do not have one of the six acceptable forms of photo ID, the State of Georgia offers a FREE Voter Identification Card. An identification card can be issued at any county registrar's office or Department of Driver Services Office free of charge.

http://www.sos.georgia.gov/Gaphotoid/

People over 65 could vote using expired ID’s and persons with incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level could qualify for a free ID card and/or a free birth certificate copy.

The bill is expected to easily pass into law.

http://blogs.kansas.com/gov/2011/01/18/ ... z1Pzsds4v1

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas House passed hotly debated legislation Monday requiring voters to show photo identification before casting ballots, sending to Gov. Rick Perry's desk a measure he declared an "emergency" item for the legislative session. ...

The Senate and House had already approved similar versions of the bill and spent the last month working out a compromise on minor provisions. The last version approved by the Senate last week and the House on Monday allows the state to issue free IDs to be used specifically for voting if someone does not have another acceptable form of identification.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2721083/posts

In doing the research for this post, I discovered also that the Demo politicians, now that their complaints about requiring people who can't afford it to have picture IDs is being addressed in legislature after legislature, have now switched to complaining that it's a bad idea because providing the free ID's is too expensive....

Gee one might almost get the impression that these folks will try to use any excuse in order to permit people to vote without demonstrating that they are qualified to do so....A cynical person might even think that they saw some advantage in voter fraud....

[Scooter]

Of course it doesn't bother you. You're not the target that someone is trying to disenfranchise.

At least, not yet...

Carp----it's no more a poll tax than herding folks onto a church bus is a bribe.

I did notice you acknowledged that it didn't bother me however failed to include how it infringed on your voting privileges...

It obviously wouldn't infringe on mine since I don't even live in the U.S.

If the IDs are going to be provided for free in all jurisdictions implementing this requirement, at least it eliminates the taint of unconstitutionality (remains to be seen if this will be true in all states doing this). It is still an attempt to put a barrier in the way of people voting based the perceived political slant of those who wouldn't already have photo IDs.

[Lord Jim]

If the IDs are going to be provided for free in all jurisdictions implementing this requirement, at least it eliminates the taint of unconstitutionality (remains to be seen if this will be true in all states doing this).

From what I've been reading, the states that are passing these requirements are using the Indiana law (which provides for free IDs and has been upheld by the Supreme Court) as the template for their legislation.

It is still an attempt to put a barrier in the way of people voting based the perceived political slant

Well it's certainly going to serve as a barrier in the way of people voting fraudulently....

The Supreme Court has up held the Constitutionality, and the policy enjoys overwhelming popular support. For state legislatures to pass laws that the courts determine do not violate anyone's rights, and the public wants, is the way our representative democracy is supposed to work.

It's the folks trying to prevent this legislation that should be explaining themselves.

[Crackpot]

The thing is there has been no proof of widespread voter fraud that would nessesitate these kinds of laws. And the whole argument behind these laws (on both sides) is founded squarely in partizan politics. Pretending otherwise is disengenuous.

The thing that sits badly to me about the whole Idea is that the same people that would claim the nessesity for these laws (without showing an actual need) are the same that say we're paying too much in taxes which would in turn fund thes laws.

The disconnect between what we pay in taxes and the knowledge of the costs (and benefits) of the services the government provides truly boggles my mind.

[dgs49]

LJ, bless you for doing the research that I was too lazy to do for myself. And making the argument better.

It boggles my mind that Democrats would seriously propose that until there is evidence of widespread voter fraud, then these bills should be dropped. Let's not put a lock on the door until after we been victimized.

The "too costly" argument has been raised in Pennsylvania - rather ironically by the Democrats, who piss away millions every day and don't give it a second thought.

[Crackpot]

Are you willing to fund this program with higher taxes dgs?

[Sue U]

It boggles my mind that Democrats would seriously propose that until there is evidence of widespread voter fraud, then these bills should be dropped. Let's not put a lock on the door until after we been victimized.

So your proposal is to spend truckloads of money on a "problem" that doesn't actually exist? Oh, but it presents one more obstacle to voting for the poor, the disabled and the marginalized, who tend to vote Democrat, so yeah, money well spent, especially when elections are close.

[Lord Jim]

Sue, while I'm truly moved by your sudden conversion to "budget hawk" I'm afraid that your "truckload of money" characterization" is somewhat misplaced:

In Indiana, the number of free ID cards issued from 2007-2010 has been much higher than in Georgia and has cost the state more. In those four years the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles has issued 771,017 free photo IDs at a total cost of just over $10 million according to Jeremy D. Burton, Help America Vote Act outreach manager with the Indiana Secretary of State’s office.

http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2011 ... wly_e.html

The state budget appropriation for the year 2010 alone was 14.4 billion....

http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localg ... Budget.htm

I couldn't find numbers for the earlier years, but let's err on the side of caution and assume the budget averaged 12 billion per year for the previous three years...that's 36 billion....

To keep the math simple, lets round the 14.4 billion for 2010 down to 14 billion...that adds up to a total of 50 billion in state expenditures for the four year period...

According to my calculator, that makes the cost of this program as a percentage of of total budget outlays, a whopping .02% percent ...or about 22 cents per year for each Indiana resident...with 81% popular support, I doubt that there 's a whole lot of complaining.

That ain't a "truckload"; hell, that ain't even a clown car load.....

.02% of the budget spent to make a huge contribution towards one of the most fundamental aspect of democracy; the integrity of elections...

There isn't a state in The Union that doesn't waste a helluvalot more on things a helluvalot less important....so the idea that this represents some great financial burden is a complete straw man. (As is the idea that tax increases would be required. There's no tax increase that one could devise that would raise the little amount of revenue this requires)

It's also not accurate to talk about this as a measure that prevents a problem "before" it happens..

The fact of the matter is, that if a state doesn't have adequate safeguards in place to help guarantee that the people who are voting are the ones that qualified to be voting, you can have no idea what the extent of the problem is, because you have no way to measure it.

It would be like telling a store owner who doesn't have an inventory tracking system in place that he doesn't need one because he doesn't have any proof that his employees are stealing his stock. Of course he doesn't; without a system in place to track it, he has no way of knowing.

So this is another straw man.

The bottom line is that when a perfectly Constitutional system, that costs so little to implement, is available to eliminate a problem about something so fundamental to our democratic system, it's a complete no brainer to do it. (Unless of course, one has a political agenda favoring having those not legally qualified able to vote.)

Which is no doubt why it enjoys such overwhelming popular support.

[Rick]

I can't remember which state it was, but I don't understand why they would allow a conceal carry ID yet not a student ID...