Democrats & Voter ID

[dgs49]

Is there any contemporary issue that more clearly illustrates the Democrats' utter dependence on the continuing votes of the stupid, uninformed, and incompetent, than their overblown reactions to proposed legislation (currently under consideration in several states) to require positive voter identification at the polls?

I can think of none.

The laws merely ask that prospective voters present a government-issued photo-identification card when showing up to vote. If they don't currently have one, it will be provided at no cost. Obviously, the vast, vast majority of adult Americans who are eligible to vote carry a valid "voter identification" card with them already: their drivers licenses. Those on public assistance also have a government-provided photo ID as well. I personally wouldn't even think of going to vote without a photo ID.

The Dems hysterically shriek that such a law will disproportionately and unfairly disenfranchise minorities, particularly Blacks and "Latinos." Disenfranchise? Does asking for something that any rational service provider in the public or private sector already requires constitute an undue burden? Would anyone be "prevented" from voting under these laws? Hardly.

The Dems claim that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the past, so what's the point?

The point is EXACTLY that contemporary elections, particularly at the national level, have been so close that even minor fraud could potentially throw an election one way or another, and there is in fact no way to definitively conclude that determinative voter fraud has not existed in the past. Indeed, we all know that it has gone on forever, it is only the scale that is in dispute. It is generally conceded that voter fraud in Chicago tipped the 1960 election in favor of JFK.

Further, I would actually posit that the Democrats are so riled by these laws because they WANT voter fraud to be available to them in the future, because they anticipate a very close election in 2012.

Voter ID - an idea whose time has come. And it exposes the Democrats for what they do: pander to the ignorant in order to get their votes.

[Scooter]

The laws merely ask that prospective voters present a government-issued photo-identification card when showing up to vote. If they don't currently have one, it will be provided at no cost.

No, it won't. And several of the initiatives on photo ID specifically require the presentation of IDs which will cost money, eg. a passport.

Obviously, the vast, vast majority of adult Americans who are eligible to vote carry a valid "voter identification" card with them already: their drivers licenses.

And yet, not every eligible voter does. Many of those also happen to be elderly and of limited income (i.e. not able to waste money on a passport that they will never use to travel).

Those on public assistance also have a government-provided photo ID as well.

No, they don't.

The imposition of photo ID requirements to vote amount to nothing more or less than a poll tax, and should therefore be declared void under the 24th Amendment. Unfortunately, given the current composition of the Supreme Court, that is unlikely to happen.

[Rick]

A photo ID in Arkansas costs $5.00...

[Scooter]

So a poll tax is constitutional if it's only $5.00?

That is, assuming that someone who actually needs this ID, because they have none other that are suitable, could actually meet the ID requirements necessary to obtain a state photo ID (and assuming that a state photo ID would be considered acceptable for voting purposes - the initiatives underway in some states would suggest otherwise).

And of course, almost all of the government offices where one can apply for a state ID keep banker's hours, meaning that someone who works (or who relies on someone who works to get around) would have to take time off work and therefore be docked pay in order to wait in line to get it done.

Let's stop pretending that this is about preventing voter fraud and name it for what it is - an attempt to disenfranchise people who are poor and therefore less likely to possess the "traditional" forms of photo ID (driver's licence or passport) and who because they are poor are more likely to vote Democrat.

[Rick]

The "poor" around here are also just as likely to buy a $10.00 lottery ticket.

One must also have ID to buy liquor...

[Scooter]

Buying liquor isn't a constitutional right, last time I checked. Nor does everyone entitled to vote drink. Nor is anyone over 25-30 likely to be carded. Nor do lottery tickets have anything to do with this at all.

[Liberty1]

There is no right to vote outlined in the constitution that I am aware of.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

[Scooter]

Yes, I suppose that if one twists the Constitution into a pretzel as well as ignoring many of its explicit provisions, one could argue that the Constitution does not provide for the right to vote.

[Guinevere]

Oh forget it.

[Rick]

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/n ... 202011.pdf

First Time Voters Who Register by Mail
If you are registering to vote for the first time in your jurisdiction and are mailing this registration application, Federal law requires you to show proof of identification the first time you vote. Proof of identification includes:
• A current and valid photo identification or
• A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that shows your name and address.
Voters may be exempt from this requirement if they submit a COPY of this identification with their mail in voter registration form. If you wish to submit a COPY, please keep the following in mind:
• Your state may have additional identification requirements which may mandate you show identification at the polling place even if you meet the Federal proof of identification.
• Do not submit original documents with this application, only COPIES.

Federal law requires proof of ID just to register to vote...

[Scooter]

Federal law does not require photo ID.

Unless your utility bills, bank statements, and paychecks all come with your photo imprinted on them.

[Rick]

All the utility companies I've dealt with required ID.

Most required 2 forms...

[Rick]

Identification or the ability to identify oneself is one of life's little thangs.

It isn't a poll tax...

[Scooter]

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.

[Liberty1]

Yes, I suppose that if one twists the Constitution into a pretzel as well as ignoring many of its explicit provisions, one could argue that the Constitution does not provide for the right to vote

Show me where it does.

Here, here is a leftest spin on it maybe you'll believe that.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/featu ... ht_to_vote

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote, and our federal courts currently read the document not to include it.

Early in our coutry, you had to be a land owner, as BO says, "have some skin in the game". But it is basically left up to the states. Before the 19th ammendment, women had suffrage in varying degrees in different states.

[Scooter]

The Constitution explicitly states that Representatives and Senators are to chosen by the people. How that is to be interpreted in any way other than that the people shall vote to elect Representatives and Senators, I'm afraid I simply can't see it.

[Liberty1]

But not necessarilly all people. As I said, women were not universally in the voting pool until 1920.

It does not specifically give you the right to vote (like it does for free speech), but it does prohibit any rules based on race or gender.

[Scooter]

Are we talking about what was or what is? Clearly in the past, some people did not have the right to vote. Just as clearly, amendments have been passed to ensure that they do. The 14th Amendment, as amended by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments, says that the right of any adult citizen to vote in any state or federal elections shall not be denied, except upon having committed a crime or rebellion, upon penalty of losing representation in the House.

[Gob]

I've no problem with ID for voting, if the right methods of obtaining one can be made easy, legal, and free/cheap.

I think you'd find about 5-6% of voters in London would stop voting.

(Speculation on my part, don't ask for hard proof.)

[Scooter]

In the Missouri case that lib1 referenced, the estimate was that it would impact 4% of the electorate. I think there's lots of electoral history to suggest that could easily decide a race.