One example: elderly folks who don’t have photo ids, like this couple:
When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana’s primary in May, they didn’t realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.
The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later, even though they knew the people working the polling site that day. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners ultimately had their votes rejected — news to them until informed recently by an Associated Press reporter.
Edward Weidenbener, a World War II veteran who had voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential contest, said he was surprised by the rules and the consequences.
“A lot of people don’t have a photo ID. They’ll be automatically disenfranchised,” he said.
Source: Yahoo News
A World War II veteran and his wife, denied the opportunity to vote by voter ID laws – anyone still think they’re a good idea? Facts are stubborn things, and the facts surrounding voter ID show clearly that in person voter impersonation does not happen. Click the link and read the whole article, it goes on to talk about actual stats on in person voter fraud, the type of fraud which voter ID laws purport to fix, with the Brennan Center counting only nine cases over a span of several years.
Thousands, perhaps millions of legitimate voters will be denied the right to vote, in order to prevent a crime that never happens. Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem, and that’s a stubborn fact that won’t go away.
…then they’d really be up a creek. It looks like a better job of educating people on new requirements could have been done, and this is why it is now my view that new such laws shouldn’t take effect until next cycle. We hear about identity theft all the time so I have contended that ultimately being able to flash ID PROTECTS the voter. This is one of those things where once is once too many.
You realize, of course, that the odds of that actually happening are staggeringly small.
Well if you show up second to find that someone claiming to be you already voted, you should be able to show your id in that case and be allowed to vote. Note that the same thing can happen if the poll worker accidentally checks off the wrong name.
The reason that we hear about identity theft crime is that it is (a) easy for bad guys to steal multiple identities at the same time (b) they make a lot of money using the stolen information. Neither of these apply to voting systems currently. It is simply not worth it for one person to risk arrest and public humiliation just to throw an extra vote to a candidate.
This type of voter fraud is not a problem worth worrying about. Even if a few people manage to cheat in this fashion, it would impact the total vote *far* less than fascist checks that prevent valid voters from actually casting a ballot. While it doesn’t seem like a big deal to have to produce an id if you are used to always carry one around, you have to realize that not everyone carries an id around at all times. If people go to the polling place and find they have forgotten their id, many will not bother to go home and return with it.
The true motivation for these voter id laws is %100 about voter suppression, not fraud prevention.
I’ve poll checked and there are occasionally questions, usually easily resolvable if some sort of documentation is produced.
Or did you just hit reply and type the first nonsense that popped into your head? The Brennan Center found nine – NINE – instances of in person voter fraud nationwide over the past several years. Voter impersonation does not happen often enough to warrant the massive disenfranchisement that comes along with voter ID laws.
I’ve poll checked as well and I’ve never seen any of the “occasional questions” you refer to. I’ve seen plenty of folks approach the wrong precinct and get steered to the correct one, but I’ve never seen an instance where voter ID would be of any assistance.
Is that really necessary????
Buying into right-wing memes is nonsense – I just call ’em as I see ’em. And if I was in a mood to be truly uncivil, I’d have called it F%$^ing nonsense…
they were Romney supporters anyway 🙂
Yes, I read your post, and I’m sorry you appear to not believe my experience. I walk in to your precinct, say I’m John Tehan and give your address, vote and walk out. If the poll checker doesn’t know either of us nobody is the wiser until you show up later and the checker says, “sorry sir, my list shows you have voted”. If someone has stolen your identity more completely I can easily imagine them voting under your name as well. Somebody mentioned that we have to give our SSN when we register, so another way which would credibly verify ID without actually carrying an ID is if the poll check list included with each name the last four digits of the SSN which the voter would only have to verbally tell the checker. We know each other, so I at least ask that you give credit for being sincere, rather than accuse me of writing “nonsense”.
No matter how many times you repeat them, anecdotes like this DO NOT change the facts: this claim has been investigated over and over, and each investigation comes up with the same answer — it doesn’t happen.
The right wing is driving a Voter ID movement nationwide that will disenfranchise MILLIONS of otherwise-eligible voters, and EVERY investigation comes up with a single-digit count of the number of likely instances nationwide. Even if the actual problem is a THOUSAND TIMES worse than that, it still pales in comparison to the MILLIONS of eligible voters harmed by these laws.
Your sincerity is touching but irrelevant. What you propose is nonsense — and it is dangerously racist and right-wing nonsense at that.
..and when someone I know personally writes nonsense, I call them out on it. I’m sorry, but when you say that someone could have impersonated that elderly couple, you’re not “being sincere”, you’re buying into the right-wing meme for requiring voter ID, and that’s foolish. For the record, I also call people out that I don’t know – I guess I’m something of an equal opportunity out-caller that way! 😉
The Brennan Center could easily find cases of in person impersonation, since any voter who gets turned away for this reason would raise one hell of a fuss. I know I would – wouldn’t you?
In person voter impersonation doesn’t happen nearly enough to warrant the disenfranchisement that occurs with voter ID. Your idea of last four of SSN is a good one, and it’s non-intrusive and should be easy to implement – why don’t you call your state senator and propose it as an alternative to the voter ID being pushed by the Mass GOP?
was impersonating other voters–in spite of hefty penalties and little or no advantage to any candidate–we would hear about it. You don’t think that would hit the news!?
Still, the real issue is not, to Voter ID or not to Voter ID. The real issue, the real question is, how many people is it worth disenfranchising to implement Voter ID? That’s the only question that matters. If that weren’t the real question, everyone would say yes to showing ID to vote or wouldn’t care.
…but that won’t find the person who claimed to be me. It may allow me to vote ultimately because I’d whip out my ID and point out that I really am me. This assumes that the real person shows up at all. Like, I say, not a huge priority and I actually do object to many of the specific legislative proposals I’ve heard in this regard. Other than that we’ll have to have a philosophical agreement to disagree since I’m not disputing the facts.
…because in the real world, no one has claimed to be you! Reality, Chris – not right-wing fever dreams – please come back to reality, it misses you.
If in person voter impersonation was actually happening, it would be ridiculously easy to find voters to whom it has happened. And so what if you could show your ID and prove who you are, when the voter roll says you’ve already voted when you show up at the polls – you could be trying to vote twice, no impersonation needed!
There are severe penalties for impersonating a voter at the polls – note that when Jimmy O’Keefe and his crew do their voter impersonation shtick, they never actually take a ballot, since that would be crossing the line and they could actually be fined for doing so. When they pulled that nonsense at the polls in NH earlier this year, a poll worked caught one of them because she knew the person being impersonated, and knew that he had died a week earlier. Impersonating a voter risks a severe penalty, and a group of people would have to do so hundreds or thousands of times to have any effect on an election. Again, voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.
Since you don’t dispute the facts, how do you reconcile your apparent callousness towards the millions of eligible voters who are being harmed by these laws? You describe your own hypothetical circumstances, yet it actually happened to Edward and Mary Weidenbener.
Since, as you admit, the fraud you are concerned about almost never happens (as close to never as is possible in an electorate this size — 9 out of hundreds of millions), then virtually ALL of those blocked by these laws will be — like the Weidenbeners — eligible voters.
Is there ANY evidence that would change your “philosophical” support for these laws?
…is either a bad law to begin with or badly applied. I believe I have consistently advocated for ways that can verify ID without the burden described. The Weidenbeners apparently were not informed of the new requirements and not given enough time to meet them, and it seems that several of these laws require voters to incur personal expense. If I recall the Brennan Center studies correctly 11% of the voting age population does not have a valid ID. It seems this is a small enough number to fix, but it will take a little time, which is why I don’t like how quickly some of these laws would take effect.
According to the US Census Bureau, there were 210.8M US citizens of voting age in the 2010 census. That means that the 11% figure cited in the Brennan Center studies translates to TWENTY THREE MILLION voters.
The cost of “fixing” this for 23M voters, in order to solve a “problem” that affects NINE OR TEN voters nationwide, is unconscionable in today’s economy. At least we agree that these laws are bad to begin with and/or badly applied.
All this to defend a strategy that all sides agree exists SOLELY to benefit GOP candidates.
If we did voter ID “right,” it would be staggeringly expensive, and it would all be in the service of solving a problem that, as has been exhaustively documented, simply does not exist at any more than an incredibly trivial level in this country.
Everything has costs and benefits, and in the case of voter ID laws, the costs outweigh the benefits to such an astonishing extent that it’s amazing that anyone takes these proposals at all seriously, much less enacts them into law. Unless, of course, there is a hidden agenda. Or not so hidden.
We are going on thirteen years in which nearly half of the country thinks that the sitting president is illegitimate, having stolen his election, to the dismissive derision of the opposite near half. The Congress is balanced on razor’s edge, and the election tilting it this way or that are likewise viewed as illigitimate by whatever side loses. The losing side excoriates its own caucus for failure to use the filibuster in the minority, and then realizes that the filibuster is a scourge unto the earth when in the majority; and then vice versa. Both sides are willing to torch the legitimacy of the courts if this or that Most Important Decision Ever doesn’t go their way, and express their shock that (gambling is going on here) someone would do such a thing when the decision DOES go their way.
Into this everlasting shitstorm wanders the voter, ready to cast her vote on the latest Most Important Election Ever and discovers that the security of her supposedly crucial vote is utterly non-existent. Indeed, the security imposed on her seeking a refund for a rotten $3.00 watermelon at Shaw’s exceeds that imposed on her vote by orders of magnitude. The unsubtle message is that your vote really has no value at all; is indeed utterly and completely devoid of value.
And then when it turns out that the balance of the Senate turns on some surprising results in precincts in St. Paul and Brainerd, or the presidency on Miami and Sarasota, it turns out to be a short leap from realizing you could easily cast votes for yourself and a few dozen of your neighbors to thinking hey, those guys probably did steal the election.
The legitimacy of the republic has been waning for 12+ years. This is a long time, and a significant problem.
Yes, it is true that “the rich” are more likely to be able to easily fill out a form to obtain a driver’s license, it is also the case that many proposed requirements are neither unreasonable nor burdensome– are are likely far less burdensome than most things people do every single day– such crucial activities as signing up a child for little league. I don’t trust the Republicans on this: their agenda is neither hidden nor virtuous. But that does not mean that there is not a problem. And the Democrats’ agenda is also neither subtle nor virtuous: a little fuzziness in the heavily populated wards can come in handy– win or lose– when every election turns on a few dozen votes here or there.
And the cure for this, of course, is voter suppression.
Keep your foot off my dick.
And they need ID’s for lots of things that they should have a right to do, like rent an apartment, cash a check, be a delegate, etc. So even if there was no concern about voter fraud (or if we settled on inked thumbs or some other method to prevent fraud) we still have a societal obligation to provide all those 23 Million people with valid ID’s. It’s in society’s interest for everyone to have an ID, we should pay the cost of ID’s for everyone. It won’t be staggeringly expensive, the infrastructure to make ID’s is already in place, it won’t cost much more to make a few more ID’s, and we’d save money by not having to process all the individual payments.
This is entirely true, but the idea of a universal ID gives the tea party set the vapors. Not that one should expect consistency from that quarter.
I’m not sure if you thought I was saying we should make a federal ID. I’m saying just stop charging people for state Driver’s Licenses or ID’s (except duplicates should still cost something). But you are right, even that gives conservatives the vapors, because now they think that people are getting something for free (even though they too would be getting their license for free). They like poor people having to scrape up money to participate in society, it makes them feel superior. But what’s the Libs excuse for imposing this regressive burden? It’d make voter ID feasible?
to explain the nuance to the Michelle Bachman set
my favorite comment title in the history of BMG. 😀
..
OK.
ID’s as a mandatory requirement to exercise my right to vote? Never.
I already register to vote, that’s good enough and the facts ear this out.
even if there is no fraud, people are losing confidence in our government because they see how easy it is to vote as someone else. That’s a problem that can be solved, and I don’t know why anyone would be offended. People that lose their ID’s and can’t vote are just as likely to be Republicans, and we can still figure out some kind of provisional ballot by taking a photo and counting the ballot if the election is close and if they get a new ID (we could even waive the duplicate license fee if they have some form from the voting station.)
is not a way to boost confidence. If people (like you) see how easy it is to vote as someone else then why are the number of people who have done so in the single digits? Don’t blame your lost confidence on my unfettered right to cast my vote.
Of the very long list of reasons why I and tens of millions of people like me lack confidence in our government, the risk of individual voter fraud is near the very bottom.
I lack confidence in my government because I see that the Supreme Court is bought and paid for by corporate interests, and now does their bidding. I lack confidence in my government because the 2000 election was stolen by the Florida GOP and the presidency handed to George W. Bush. I lack confidence in my government because even though documentary evidence of formal policies of kidnap, rape, and torture were issued from the Oval Office, no prosecutions were initiated. I lack confidence in my my government because even though closing GITMO was a centerpiece of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, GITMO is still open. I lack confidence in my government because the principle legislative accomplish of two years of Democratic control of the White House, House, and Senate was a Republican health-care initiative that amounts to a giveaway to and lifeline for the private health insurance industry.
I could go on and on and on. Universal ID is bad idea that gives me, as well as the Tea Party, the vapors.
the idea that we should suppress 23 million eligible voters because people have hurt feelings about democracy, well, that’s just doesn’t hold water. (Marx would say the idea is bourgeois, but he’s not here).
The whole voter fraud issue was created by the Republican Party, which, for its own advantage, has chosen to create fear in and loathing of government. To provide a faux solution to a (virtually) non-existent problem may be particularly Republican, but it’s not going to boost confidence in government.
There are so many problems.
– Don’t have CURRENT IDs
– Don’t have IDs with them
– Don’t want to take the time to vote because it will take longer if people have to show IDs.
David summed it up nicely, the financial cost of voter ID laws is huge, even done wrong. All to solve a problem that could exist, but doesn’t. Yes, identity theft is real. People steal identities for financial gain. They don’t do it for ONE vote. But when 23 million people, many of whom are groups that are likely to vote Democratic, don’t vote, then Republicans win.
When I use a credit card at most stores, if the charge is less than $25, I don’t have to show an ID or even sign the form. It is a cost benefit decision. Credit grantors know that people don’t risk criminal charges for such a small financial gain. It is not to say that it couldn’t happen. But it doesn’t. Know one says that someone couldn’t give another person’s name; but it just doesn’t happen on any more than an incredibly trivial level.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/voter-suppression-kevin-drum
Hat tip Ed Brayton
So yes, Voter ID laws are racist and ageist. Let’s not casually impose significant barriers to voting in the name of preventing an imaginary abuse.
As the article you site says, it is a poll tax.
There are so many more important things that these people are deprived of than being able to cast a ballot. We need to cough up the money to get these people birth certificates and ID’s, we can’t just tell all these people sorry you can’t get a license, you can’t get an ID, you can’t open a bank account or rent an apartment or get a credit card, because your birth wasn’t officially recorded. Allowing them to vote is such a patronizing non-solution to their problems, but I guess all you need from them is a few votes every few years, and then they can go back home to the rock they are forced to live under, for all you guys care.
meme from Voter ID apologists: “people against Voter ID are depriving poor folks of the right to an ID.” Tugs at the heart strings, doesn’t it? We liberals are so cold and uncaring. We don’t want poor people to get jobs and open bank accounts, so we reject Voter ID laws.
What a pathetic red herring! We could provide people with free ID’s if they want them. Boy, I don’t remember the bleeding heart GOP, ever offering that. Nope, we’re just talking about Voter ID’s. There are many other things more important to poor people than voting. In Cutie’s words, “There are so many more important things that these people are deprived of than being able to cast a ballot.” We shouldn’t let a little thing like disenfranchisement get in the way of empowering poor people.
The GOP likes the regressive effect of charging poor people money for an ID. So don’t wait for the GOP to propose free ID’s, though they will agree to them if it means voter ID laws. So you should take advantage of their willingness to cut fees for ID’s to $0 and empower people with ID’s, instead of worrying that it’d make Voter Id laws constitutional and being opposed to getting people free ID’s.
We can have provisional ballots for people who lost their ID and haven’t had time to get a new one, which could be counted if the person gets a new ID within a week and matches a photo taken at the polling station, and if it’s a close election and might make a difference. But if they can’t prove they are “Manny Ramirez of 1253C Broadway” to the RMV to get a new license, then the provisional ballot wouldn’t be counted.
Right, because the history of the GOP has been so reasonable when Dems have advocated for their positions. They’ve been right there with support. [/alternate universe where the GOP has principals other than election victory]
Wasn’t there commentary here on BMG recently on the efficacy of ‘advice to dems/liberals’?
Yeah.
I read the article now, and that woman is a hero!
She’s doing the right thing, she’s helping people get ID’s which they will use for far more than voting. That’s a great thing, it’s something that we should pay more people to do, and the ID’s themselves should be free.
is thrilled that someone is putting endless hours and dollars to protect her right to vote. And why wouldn’t he be thrilled? He wants everyone chasing their tails to protect a right that they already have – without republican attempts to make it harder.
to get their ID’s and become able to participate fully in society. They will appreciate having ID for far more than voting, now they’ll be able to cash a check, open a bank account, get SSI, rent an apartment, drive a car, etc.
…
whether voters should have to present identification. It’s a matter of which is better: having voters present ID’s to vote or disenfranchising them. Current Voter ID laws definitely disenfranchise millions–that’s right, millions–of people.
The real question is, how many voters should be disenfranchised in order to require everyone to show ID at the polls?
That’s the only real question. Because there isn’t a voter ID law on the books that doesn’t disenfranchise voters.
We have a mythical problem (voter impersonation) and a real problem (voter disenfranchisement). The real question is, how many voters should we disenfranchise before we say Voter ID laws don’t work?
without relying on the indigent to show up for their cigarette packs? I don’t think we need to worry about disenfranchisement, fewer than half of voters show up to vote anyhow. Just convince more than half of the people that have ID’s to vote for a Democrat. Is that so hard? Seriously, if you are counting on the votes of people who are so marginally participating in society that they have no ID, then that means the message is unpopular with the majority of responsible engaged participating people, who aren’t all Republicans and can surely be persuaded to vote for democratic candidates and policies that help poor people and indigent even if they won’t benefit directly themselves, by appealing to the best of our American values.
0
…which is still zero
and also tragically, un-American comment. Maybe you should consider moving to a country where only the people you approve of get to decide who runs the show. I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.
I’m for everyone having a free ID (are you against that?) and being able to vote, but if some people don’t vote or can’t because they don’t have their ID or they felt like doing something else, that shouldn’t make a difference to the election. People who don’t vote (more than half of us) don’t decide the election, and not getting a free ID is equivalent of not registering to vote, it’s their choice. The election should be decided by people who want to participate and take elections seriously. Democrats should be trying to convince the majority of people who want to participate in society to vote for them, it shouldn’t be very hard. Relying on people with no ID’s should be a red flag that maybe there is something wrong with the message or platform.
don’t know what you’re talking about. And you’re throwing red herrings around because you can’t answer the question: how many people is it worth disenfranchising to institute Voter ID measures?
Hint: the issue isn’t about having an ID so much as it is having a valid ID and reliable rolls to compare them to. (We all know the GOP is just trying to help by, say, purging eligible voters from the rolls in Florida).
In case you choose to learn something:
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/case_studies_by_state/wisconsin_2004.html#more
If they don’t have an ID, when it is offered free and there are paid public servants helping people who have lost their records or never had them, then it’s no different from them not having registered to vote, not showing up at the poll, or not marking the ballot correctly. I say, fine, enough people do get an ID, register to vote, show up at the poll, and mark their ballot correctly that we can have a democratic election that we can have confidence isn’t being thrown by some corrupt districts.
It gets tedious reading you trying to prove your pre-conceptions. Moreover, you don’t even realize what you’re talking about. The question isn’t Voter ID or no Voter ID. It’s Voter ID and disenfranchise 23 million people or no Voter ID. That’s it.
You’d rather disenfranchise people and make excuses about it. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, even if it’s not based on existing legislation or its actual effects on people.
At least refute some facts.
Is there corruption your district Cutey?