The number of legitimate voters flagged in the voter purges has dwarfed the number of suspected non-eligible voters in both Florida and Texas. A federal court struck down Texas’s voter ID law saying that it “would have a ‘retrogressive effect’ on the ability of minority voters to cast ballots and said the ‘implicit costs’ of obtaining necessary ID ‘will fall most heavily on the poor.’ The three-judge panel also noted that a disproportionately high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas live in poverty.” Ohio’s Secretary of State has backed down from and issued an apology for “his decision to block county boards of elections from setting their own early voting hours in the days leading up to the November election.” Voter purges are currently ongoing dozen states, all of which have Republican election officials.
If there was any question that the Republican Party wants to take us backwards in the future, the attempts to disenfranchise the poor and mostly non-white should provide the answer.
It’s worth remembering that voting rights were fought hard for:
I first came to this city in 1961, the year Barack Obama was born. I was one of the 13 original “Freedom Riders.” We were on a bus ride from Washington to New Orleans trying to test a recent Supreme Court ruling that banned racial discrimination on buses crossing state lines and in the stations that served them. Here in Charlotte, a young African-American rider got off the bus and tried to get a shoe shine in a so-called white waiting room. He was arrested and taken to jail.
On that same day, we continued on to Rock Hill, South Carolina, about 25 miles. From here, when my seatmate, Albert Bigelow, and I tried to enter a white waiting room, we were met by an angry mob that beat us and left us lying in a pool of blood. Some police officers came up and asked us whether we wanted to press charges. We said, “No, we come in peace, love and nonviolence.” We said our struggle was not against individuals, but against unjust laws and customs. Our goal was true freedom for every American.
Since then, America has made a lot of progress. We are a different society than we were in 1961. And in 2008, we showed the world the true promise of America when we elected President Barack Obama. A few years ago, a man from Rock Hill, inspired by President Obama’s election, decided to come forward. He came to my office in Washington and said, “I am one of the people who beat you. I want to apologize. Will you forgive me?” I said, “I accept your apology.” He started crying. He gave me a hug. I hugged him back, and we both started crying. This man and I don’t want to go back; we want to move forward.
Brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? Or do you want to keep America moving forward? My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful, nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union. Not too long ago, people stood in unmovable lines. They had to pass a so-called literacy test, pay a poll tax. On one occasion, a man was asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. On another occasion, one was asked to count the jelly beans in a jar—all to keep them from casting their ballots.
Today it is unbelievable that there are Republican officials still trying to stop some people from voting. They are changing the rules, cutting polling hours and imposing requirements intended to suppress the vote. The Republican leader in the Pennsylvania House even bragged that his state’s new voter ID law is “gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state.” That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not just.
And similar efforts have been made in Texas, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina. I’ve seen this before. I’ve lived this before. Too many people struggled, suffered and died to make it possible for every American to exercise their right to vote.
And we have come too far together to ever turn back. So we must not be silent. We must stand up, speak up and speak out. We must march to the polls like never before. We must come together and exercise our sacred right. And together, on November 6, we will re-elect the man who will lead America forward: President Barack Obama.
The is the speech, as prepared for delivery, by The Honorable John Lewis, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Georgia at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, September 6, 2012.
.
If yes, then are they racists? Perhaps Charlie can let us know, since he was there.
Conventions are public events, but not open to the public. That is, we wouldn’t want, say, Mitt Romney to crash our convention, just as you probably wouldn’t want Barack Obama or Bill Clinton crashing yours. That goes for local, not-well-known Republican or Democratic operatives. We — and you — only want delegates, media, vendors, etc. allowed into the convention hall. Because while the content of the convention is public on the main stage, it is an event for a particular political party, not for the general public.
By contrast, all 18+ citizens — EVERYBODY — has the right to vote. It is a right to vote; there is no right to attend a particular party’s convention.
Can we agree that there is a right to vote for citizens? Yes? Good.
OK. State issue IDs — regardless of form — cost money. We could offer them for free, but that’s not the system we live in right now. And more importantly, I doubt we ever will. Usually there’s some sort of processing or registration fee — for a passport, for a license, whatever. Can we agree that IDs cost money? Great.
If you require an ID to vote, and voting is a right, then you are requiring that citizens pay for the right to vote. That’s what’s wrong with voter ID laws, on principle.
But beyond principle, we know what’s really going on here. The people who are least likely to have IDs are those folks who are young, transient, poor, and old. Hm, I wonder which political party has an interest in making sure that lower income folks, old people who want to protect their medicare, and young people don’t vote? I’ll let you fill in the blank there – we don’t have to agree on that.
And by the way – you’re a small government kind of guy, right? Well, how often do you know of a local town clerk or somebody like that making a bureaucratic mistake? Would you want to make your right to vote depend on that not happening?
Because you sure have been posting a lot of them. I personally think that you probably aren’t stupid. It is just that you get your jollies trying to provoke us.
You know perfectly well that this is not even remotely comparable. It is yet another stupid trollish post.
The Democratic convention is for Democratic delegates and invited members of the press corp. It is not open to absolutely anyone. Furthermore, the President and other important officials will be present so there are major security concerns. There is also every reason to believe that troublemakers such as yourself would not hesitate to crash the convention if they could get away with it.
Voting on the other hand is open to all registered voters, there is no security concern that would warrant checking ids, and there is absolutely no evidence that there is actually problem with voter fraud. Republican officials have already admitted that checking IDs is a tactic to win the election, and since there is no fraud, the only explanation is that they (correctly) believe that people who do not have ids are less likely to vote Republican.
If you believe in small government — as you claim to do — then you should not be in favor of even more government intrusion and laws that are even intended to solve a genuine problem.
.
So why wasn’t the situation in Ohio voter suppression?
No be honest and put aside your extreme partisanship . . . .
You are concerned with outcomes. I like equal education for all, plain and simple, regardless of the outcome meaning whether blacks, hispanics, whites, asians… score differently. Many of you (maybe you) believe if we offer equal education to all and we get unequal results, then this is discriminatory and we have to fix it. Thus when we suggest a law which applies to all but would be felt greater in one population then it translates into some prejudical process and I simply disagree. If we required employment verification for mortgage applications and this hit the black community at 3x the rate of the white community, would that mean the process is discriminatory? I believe Ohio curtailed voting times for early voters across the board so I do not see any group being singled out.
… and will, no doubt, be noted again…
… in another four years when the issue is raised again. I’m sure, however, that the timing of an aggressive push to enact laws in immediate advance of an election and the complete silence at nearly all other times is merely co-incidental.
Doing the right thing is hard, no matter what the outcome…. It is, in fact, so hard that it must leave you supine with exhaustion from doing the right thing, all at once, every four years, no matter the outcome. You must need the three years in between intensive bouts of doing the right thing to recover from the run up to the election and to physically, emotionally and mentally prepare for the next election.
and maybe a lot longer. But you may think whatever you want, it’s a free country… so far.
And just sticking to the partisan line. Very disappointing. (you tell lots of us your disappointment.)
In Ohio, Republicans pushed through different standards in Republican-leaning counties from Democratic-leaning counties.
Now, again, please put aside your partisanship, and “do the right thing no matter the outcome.”
I’m waiting.
I’m no Sec of State but voting standards should be consistent throughout any state. I’m glad the courts decided to make them have the same days/hours of voting in all of their cities, towns and counties.
Surely you can recognize that it is possible to make a law that sounds “equal” but produces equal outcomes (either deliberately or inadvertently) among various groups? For example, if you hold a town vote in the summer time, you are going to exclude the people who go on vacation during the summer. Access is equal, but the outcome is not.
Using your example, of course it isn’t discriminatory to do an employment verification on all mortgage applications, unless the verification process inadvertently wound up rejecting the applications of blacks for an unrelated reason, for example, maybe if businesses in the black community don’t happen to use a payroll service such as ADP as much as and therefore can’t produce electronic payroll records, causing a failure in the verification.
Examining events based on their outcome allows below-the-surface unfairness to be discovered.
You’re right – the literacy test and the poll tax are both ‘fair’ if your only definition of fair is ‘applied to all equally’.
Like I’ve said before, You don’t have to have ‘hatred’ to have racism. But the other more insidious thing that should be pointed out is that being able to insist that ‘equal application’ is sufficient on it’s own to establish ‘fairness’ gives cover for people to hide their actual intent. This is what I think is going on with Voter ID.
I wonder how many people used to claim that they were ‘fair’ and had a ‘clear conscience’ about the poll tax or the literacy test? I wonder how many ‘clear consciences’ were so out of ignorance. I wonder how much moral cognitive dissonance was out there with people knowing the effects were wrong but were fine with that since it was ‘fair’.
else is a hypocrite, but you consistently reject evidence that doesn’t meet with your view of the world.
Dan, you have an amazing capacity to repeat the same mistake over and over and over again. You could open up your own Legal Seafood with the red herrings you conjure out of thin air.
You would push for a law requiring every legal citizen of the U.S. to be entitled to have a state issue ID. Instead, you rather keep them isolated, poor, insignificant, until election day, where you can bus them or drive them to a polling booth, have them vote the party line like a zombie, give them a pack of smokes, then when it’s over, kick them to the curb and hope to run into them in the next election cycle.
Now answer my question, did the Dems require an ID to attend the convention. If so, why? If not, then at least they would be consistent in their beliefs.
JKust like an ID is required to buy alcohol, to drive, to fly on a plane, to sit on a jury, to enter the military, to leave/enter the country, to buy many prescription drugs at the pharmacy…
Apparently I didn’t realize that we have a racist policy on so many aspects of our life. OR, we simply want to be sure people are who they say they are regarding important issues. Offer free IDs to anyone for free and make them incredibly easy to get.
That, of course, would cost millions and millions – probably billions – of dollars. Are you willing to back the necessary tax hikes to pay for it, and do you think your party will go along?
but yes I would support a .0001% tax hike to fund free IDs for everyone.
of the fantasy world in which Republicans live. Quick Googling revealed this admittedly biased resource that estimates costs to the 35 states in which GOP-sponsored voter ID laws have been advanced to be between roughly $275 million and $800 million if all the laws were enacted. Add in the 15 other states that you’d presumably like to see enact similar laws, and you’d likely clear a billion.
Another point, John, is that the way to solve this whole problem is with a national ID card that the federal government pays for and issues to everyone – precisely what your party has strenuously opposed for years.
Finally, you know full well that tax increases, however teensy, are off the table for any reason as far as your crowd is concerned.
If there was a law passed requiring free state issued ID to anyone who is in poverty? I thing someone on BMG proposed retina scan ID or thumb print recognition.
let’s solve the ID problem first by making sure that everyone in the country has a government-issued photo ID, either by the state or by the feds. Once that’s done, then we can start requiring ID to vote. And your team has to agree to the tax hikes that will be necessary to finance this very expensive project.
Deal?
Instead of jacking up taxes to pay for it, can we first look at the lard in the federal budget, starting with monies going to public tv. That needs to be cut first.
If you’re truly concerned about making sure that voters are properly identified, you first make sure all citizens can easily obtain proper identification and then require it. You don’t institute requirements first, disenfranchising huge segments of the population. That’s public policy making 101.
The fact that Republicans are doing this backwards means either they are purposely trying to disenfranchise huge segments of the population, do not understand basic common sense on how to implement such a policy, or don’t care one iota about the real-world effects of what they’re proposing. I find all of those explanations appalling.
I am 100% convinced the voter ID laws are an attempt at voter suppression. But for those arguing it’s not, I’d be curious to hear the explanation of why they’d implement a policy that disenfranchises so many people. Seriously, what is it? “It’s OK to block hundreds of thousands of people from voting so we no longer have to worry about the 10 documented cases of voter ID fraud in the nation?” “It doesn’t matter?” “We don’t care?” “It’s just a happy byproduct?”
I think the suggestion that each citizen have a government-issued photo ID, especially by the Feds, is a bad idea. This might one of the handful of times when I think that traditional Buckley-style conservatism had it right.
If there are to be tax hikes, I can think of a LONG LONG list of higher priority items that should come before squandering any more money on “solving” this absurd non-problem.
within some national parameters (citizenship, age, etc.) That’s one reason why a national ID is frowned upon.
* One does not need to have an ID to buy alcohol — when was the last time you were carded?
* One does not need to have an ID to fly on a plane — I’ve boarded commercial planes twice in the past 6-7 years from a USA location to another USA location without an ID. Both times I was sans wallet. They still let me board.
* One does not need a *valid* ID to leave the country by foot/auto northward. An expired ID is sufficient to enter Canada. I’ve done that too, within the past 3 years.
Voting does not involve mind-altering substances nor ammunition. Casting a ballot for a politician isn’t like casting a ballot to put a man in jail for a few decades. The rest of your examples are, well, incorrect.
P.S. “Offer free IDs to anyone for free and make them incredibly easy to get.” If the GOP would push this policy in a state *first* and then demand voter ID laws, it would be both a whole lot harder to oppose their policy proposal *and* a whole lot harder to draw the conclusion that they’re trying to repress the turnout of folks who, statistically, vote for their opponents.
A few years back I was driving and I thought I heard the announcer talk about pending legislation about “drunk voting.” I recall thinking that drunken voting might not be a good idea but do we really need laws against it? The words had caught my attention so I focused on listening. I quickly realized that they were discussing laws again “drunk boating.”
I’ll get the laws later when I’m not on my phone.
I’ll let you navigate the state legislative documents, but I’ve got the TSA right here: TSA air travel acceptable documents
Your personal experiences are not what the law requires and certainly not the experience of the vast majority of air travelers.
It’s a bad analogy anyway. Non-citizens ineligible to vote may travel by air.
“Not having an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly.”
I wasn’t the one who claimed that an ID was “required to buy alcohol, … to fly on a plane, [or] … to leave/enter the country.” I refuted those claims.
P.P.S. It turns out that to enter Canada you don’t need a valid passport, but you do need a valid ID and an expired passport. So, I got an important detail incorrect on that one.
That’s the problem here – Republicans don’t want to make them incredibly easy to get, because they make up situations that might happen and then they write the laws to prevent those fairy-tales from occurring.
For example, johnd, would you support a law that allows you to get an ID simply by showing up and having a photo taken? I’m guessing no, because you’ll claim that you can go to two different places and get two different IDs.
How about a law that allows you to get an ID by giving your Social Security Number – everyone has one of those, right? Nope. You’ll claim that people can give the numbers of someone else.
Next, you’ll raise the citizenship issue, so you’ll require a birth certificate. Bingo, there is where the gates get closed on people. Why? Because in order to get a birth certificate, in many cases you have to go to the town where you were born. What if you were born in Puerto Rico? Well, I just looked at the process, you can order one online. Or, if you want to do it by mail, you can download the form to order one online. So immediately that knocks out people without internet access.
But do you know what else you need to order it? A state-issued ID card. Whoops! Catch-22.
Do you know what else you need? A $5 money order. Not a check, not cash. That means a trip to the bank, assuming you have a bank account, you may not be charged, but if you don’t, then you might have to pay another $5 for the money order. You also need a SASE – so a trip to the post office, plus the store to buy envelopes.
Once you get the birth certificate, then you can go somewhere else, bring the birth certificate, and get an ID, right? Where do you have to go for this ID? Town hall? Seems like the best place, but some town halls are only open a few hours per week, and are rarely open after hours. RMV? Have you been to one lately? The lines are 45+ minutes.
Do you see what the end result is here? It has the effect of making it just hard enough for many people to not want to bother voting. And that is the ultimate goal of Republicans.
I attended the convention. All that was needed was a credential to attend the convention. No ID was required to get a credential. But I don’t see how this is relevant to the conversation.
Basically it comes down this. Do you want to increase or decrease the number of people who vote? If you want to increase the number of people who vote you make it easy for people to vote.
Republicans know that there ideas will not win if more people vote. So they want to suppress the vote.
Show ID to vote requires substantial amounts of money to implement when there is absolutely no evidence that there is a problem with people voting who are posing as someone else. If free IDs were issued it would cost even more money to implement and still not solve a problem.
What “Show ID” does do is the following:
– Adds a barrier to voting to people who so not have current IDs; people who are less likely to have current IDs: students, women, minorities, senior citizens, lower income earners. These are all people who are more likely to voted Democratic.
– Increases the amount of time people need to spend in line waiting to vote because of the added burden of checking IDs.
– Adds a barrier by simply requiring the ID to be in the voter’s possession.
Republicans hope many legitimate voters will stay at home, fearing they don’t have the required ID.
Always have and always will.
I believe that you personally want every legitimate voter to show up. That does not change the fact that others do not want every legitimate voter to show up. It is not the intent of some who support voter ID laws or those who see no harm in it, but the result is clear that voter ID laws reduce voter turnout.
AS I have repeated stated, you need a picture ID to sit on a jury. I’ll use your words…
I didn’t have to show a picture id any of the times that I served jury duty, and I have sat on an actual Jury twice.
I don’t recall having to show a picture ID when I served on jury duty. I googled it and did not find such a requirement listed.
Here is the DNC application which requires it.
http://www.demconvention.com/official-providers-distribution/
There are a number of ways that people get credentials. I did not get my credential through the process you linked. I did not show an ID to get a credential.
Do you have any sense of decency or compassion yourself, because I have not seen a shred of it in anything you have posted. All I have seen is intellectually dishonest, cynical, and childish attempts and manipulation. So please don’t be calling others out on their lack of compassion.
Because no one on their own can produce as much crap as you do. HINT: It’s not about winning the argument, Dan. It’s about winning the argument and being truthful.
VoterID is because Republicans feel sorry for people who don’t have IDs?! That’s rich.
Your exception proves the rule. Thanks for channeling Breitbart on this; we’ll all be smarter now. Here’s the actual answer: the registration process obviates (look it up if you have to) the need for IDs. People who aren’t registered ahead of time have to show an ID to pick up their credentials.
Here’s how it works: you have to be elected as a delegate to get to the convention. First, you have to be a registered Democrat. You then show up at a local caucus to run. You check in at the caucus, but don’t have to produce an ID. In most cases, people running have supporters there. The winners are announced at the caucus and sent to the DSC. What makes it all work is the fact that people are all registered as Democrats. It’s the registration process, not IDs that matter. That’s why Kate didn’t show an ID at the National Convention.
Instead of requiring a valid ID in order to vote, we will use similar filters that Kate had to go through to attend the DNC Convention without showing an ID. I wonder if Kate filled out a CORI/criminal background check? Hmmm
I seems to me that he’s accusing Kate of being a criminal – when is enough, enough?
Clearly you never volunteer for anything b/c if you had, CORI checks are the norm. The point is would Democrats want all voters to go through such an examination of their backgrounds.
Dave, it’s ok this guy launched a personal attack, don’t bounce him off the blog, I forgive him.
So ban them already.
It is as if the trolling here is no longer a “conservative” voice taking a contrary position, but have become deliberate acts to kill any reasonable discussion.
I’ve been arguing that “the problem” that could be prevented with VoterID, namely voter impersonation, could be handled by an improved registration system. The actual problem is not one of proper ID, it’s one of registration. Presenting proper ID is only part of the problem for voters. What’s lacking are up-to-date databases and voter rolls. People present up-to-date ID’s that don’t match the voter list or vice versa. Here’s the Brennan Center’s suggestion:
Of course, the GOP-run states have not presented any such plans. They are more interested in preventing people from voting.
Did somebody step on a cowpie?
All reality-based rational beings agree.
Though it’s only part of the more general Republican program of “citizenship suppression” — being priced out of free speech, ramming favored religions to block others’ freedom of religion, etc.
then what do you call this?
http://youtu.be/HmaE2Aez_XY
a president elected by 5 members of SCOTUS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country
Not sure how I feel about this yet. Maybe nobody cares about what other countries do, but in reading this thread I was reminded of how the Soviet Block kept, and to some degree, still keeps their thumb on citizens…
will never go for it.
the national ID card trial balloon has been floated in the past, only to be shot down by both left and right. My point is that, if some sort of national consensus emerges that photo ID should be required for voting, the absolutely essential first step must be to ensure that everyone in the country has a government-issued photo ID *before* voter ID laws are put in place.
Here’s a solution that I have rarely heard mentioned.
We have these things called “computers” these days. They’re pretty neat, I suggest if you haven’t checked one out, give it a look.
Anyway, how about taking a photograph of a person when they register to vote, and then make this photograph available at the poll site? Instead of crossing out your name in a book when you vote, they can press a button on a touch-screen to record that you voted, and at the same time, they can make sure that the photo is a reasonable match to your face.
The photographs can be updated at the polling site every 5 years or so. The only match would have to be done visually (against the old photo) by the polling worker, no ID required on the part of the voter.
It is voter-ID without the onus of the voter having to jump through hoops to both get and bring an ID with them.
Liberals and Conservatives alike, go ahead, shoot holes in this one.
holes:
* a subset of Muslim women
* those with significant facial surgery
* those with substantial changes to facial hair
* requiring a voter registration to happen at a gov’t official’s photo booth
I’m not arguing that any of the first three are show stoppers, but the fourth is really problematic. Right now I can fill out a voter reg form and mail it to the Town Clerk. I don’t have to show up during open hours for a photo.
Those things are all true, but they would be a problem with any form of voter ID that is required.
I’m not sure what you mean by the fourth entry though. My understanding is that if I fill out a registration card and send it via mail, the first time I vote I need to show some kind of ID which matches the registration – a utility bill will suffice. Under my suggestion, when that would happen, you would step into the photo booth to get your picture associated with your registration.
In lieu of a photo, a signature could be required and compared to a signature on file.
You can always shoot holes in any type of system – for example, even the most draconian system in place now could be circumvented by someone with a machine that made fake IDs. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the practical.
The key is registration and accurate databases. And they don’t have to be perfect. As long as we have a way to insure everyone who is legally entitled gets to vote.
Doing the photo at the polling place is a wrinkle I didn’t catch the first time. That’s interesting. Heck, they could require that you get a new photo every X years to keep it “fresh”.
Of course, strictly speaking, you’re not required at this time to provide the government a picture of you for any other reason. Still, I’m not sure that in the 21st century that it’s really a problem. The government firewalls data from other agencies, requiring a warrant — the photo could be the same.
As for the first three bullets, they’re a problem for any voter ID that requires a photo, to be sure, and could be worked around. I’m intrigued by this proposal for photos. Of course, provisional ballots would still exist, and would help work around individual problems like the first three bullets and any number of other strange photo results.
The way I see it, people on the Right accuse people on the Left of opposing voter ID because people on the Left want people to vote fraudulently. People on the Left accuse people on the Right of wanting voter ID because people on the Right want to make it harder for specific groups to vote.
So let’s come up with a proposal that doesn’t make it harder for specific groups to vote, yet makes it harder to vote fraudulently. I see this centralization of identification as a way to do that. Instead of relying on making hundreds of millions of people to jump through individual hoops to get the right kind of IDs which would prevent voter fraud, centralize the function and sculpt it so that it serves one purpose – identifying voters when they vote.
I honestly suspect that few conservatives will latch onto this idea, because I really do believe that conservatives are trying to prevent people from voting – and while they may not all be so nefarious as trying to specifically prevent blacks or the poor from voting, I do believe they are trying to prevent people who they deem “irresponsible” from voting, and that erecting hurdles will in fact do this.
It is perfectly in line with just about every conservative I’ve debated on voting in general – that they don’t want “stupid people” to vote. They have crafted a technically difficult plan to achieve this.
I think it is no coincidence that zero conservative posters have commented on this plan. I think I’ve successfully called their bluff.
I’m not proposing a policy to quiz people about basic facts such as ‘Who was more responsible for the death of Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney ?’ before they’re allowed into the voting booth. Although I suspect that would be lots more effective in ensuring people make intelligent voting choices than requiring photo IDs. Too bad the conservatives you debate about voting issues probably couldn’t acknowledge that point.
As I predicted, no conservatives, particularly those posting in this post, have commented on my suggestion. Why not? Is it because they aren’t really interested in preventing voter fraud, but instead are interested in trying to prevent groups of people from voting?
I’m 100% on board for the “dual mandate” of allowing everyone to vote and ensuring those ineligible cannot vote
Two points:
(1) I’m all for your suggestion of “centralization of identification” although this excludes the feds: the Constitution gives the states the responsibility of running elections, electing its electoral college, etc. (Besides, we already have a federal citizenship ID program: the US Passport.) What do you propose? How about a means tested/subsidized photo ID? You can get passport photos at every CVS, Walgreen, Walmart and Target…how hard can this be? Some sort of proof of citizenship would be required. I had to prove my citizenship for certain state and federal licensing, and got a certified copy of my birth certificate…from Illinois.
(2) We already let anyone who is having registration problems at the polling station vote by casting a provisional vote to be counted when the issue is cleared up. Wouldn’t this work vis a vis an ineligibility problem?
I’ve never met a conservative who, in discussing this issue, has anything in mind except preventing voter fraud. All of my progressive friends, similarly, only have the unfettered right to vote in mind.
These are not in the least mutually exclusive. Nothing will ever be perfect, but we can certainly try to maximize both objectives without casting aspersions on each others’ motivations.
I am not suggesting that people get physical IDs. I’m suggesting that people get their photo taken upon registration, and the photos are kept at the voting office. When you go to vote, you give your address, they punch it into the computer, pull up your picture, and you get to vote. Re-take pictures every 5-10 years.
For those registering by mail – they have to show ID the first time they vote anyway, so they give that ID (it can as simple as a water bill), get their picture taken at the polls, and they get to vote.
This completely prevents people from voting using the identity of dead people or people who they know don’t vote.
Of course, the next big cry is “prove your a citizen”. That’s the hard part – how will you do this? A very simple way is to ask for their social security number, although a cross-check might cause problems, particularly with married women because the name may not match. Make the standard loose, so that if the SSN comes back with “Harry Smith” and the person is registering under “Harold Smith”, that’s not an auto-reject. But put the burden on the state – the citizen simply provides their SSN. No barrier.
The whole birth certificate route is what makes things very difficult for certain classes of people.
Keep in mind that it is not very easy to get a certified copy of your birth certificate, especially if you don’t live in the town that you were born in. You have to figure out who to call, you have to fill out a form, you have to pay money, etc. That’s a barrier.
Keep in mind that it is virtually impossible to guarantee that the person holding the birth certificate is the person whose name is on the certificate. So what are you going to do? Make people jump through more ID hoops? That’s a barrier.
Keep in mind that in many cases, you can’t get a certified copy of a birth certificate without first possessing some other form of ID. That’s a barrier – and a Catch-22, because the ID that conservatives want can’t be had without a birth certificate.
Keep in mind that married women will need to obtain a certified copy of their marriage license too, because their birth certificate won’t have the same name as their voting name. That’s a barrier.
Involving birth certificates makes things very, very hard for people, and that is why Republicans are asking for it. Interesting that they didn’t make it a requirement for everyone. There is zero evidence that illegal aliens are voting. None. I’ve never heard of a single case or even credible accusation.
If you’re going to insist on proof of citizenship upon voting, then I’m going to call you out as someone who is not at all concerned about actually preventing fraud; you’re someone who wants to make it hard for certain people to vote. Why can I say this? Because you’re trying to solve a problem that does not exist.
If you’re really so concerned about fraud, then why aren’t you concerned about fake IDs? Any college kid can get one, I bet those Russian spies had really good ones, so doesn’t that mean the system you’re backing has a hole big enough to drive a truck through? But not a shred of concern there.
I think the point of view has been that anything–anything at all– that makes any attempt of any kind to “make it harder to vote fraudulently” by definition “makes it harder for specific groups to vote” and is therefore anathema.
My sense is that, here, the view is that there is no problem of any kind, and therefore any proposal is a priori unacceptable.
This, like many issues, has competing values. Here’s a great system, but it costs too much. Here’s a great system, but giving the government that much power over my private information and life makes me feel a bit like Winston Smith.
None of that makes it any less strange that there is more security imposed on my purchase of a dose of Sudafed than on my vote. I think it is likely true, as most liberals assert, that the instance of voter fraud of the kind that these laws are supposed to prevent is extremely small. But this is just another way of saying that my– and your– vote is almost completely worthless.
That is why, even though (i) I agree that the problem of this kind of fraud is minimal; and (ii) I agree that lots of Voter ID laws are introduced for Republican partisan advantage, I am nevertheless mildly– mildly, I said, mildly!– troubled by the liberal response: the liberal position seems to convey that you, the voter, only have value as a part of a group. We could care less about you, but The Martians, there is an interest we need to protect. Americans rebel at that kind of thinking. That is why I think that the issue can gain traction, even among non-Republican independents, who think “Yompin Yiminy, it just isn’t that fricking difficult to get a driver’s license. Obtaining one, or at least a non-driver ID like grandma had, is a basic life skill on the order of ‘buying something at a store.’ “
Centralmassdad, making people take multiple steps before voting simply causes less committed voters to abandon the process. That’s human nature. That’s why Amazon has 1-click shopping – because if you have to fill out a form before purchasing something, they lose 20% of the people.
This is what Republicans want. Republicans know that poor people, or those who vote Democratic, don’t have IDs. So making only that group get IDs has the effect of filtering a number of a targeted group from the voting process.
How about we make people who own more than one house need to annually file some paperwork for each house they own, affirming they are actually living in the house where they are registered to vote? If they want to take a residential exemption on their property taxes they have to do the same thing, so this isn’t much of a burden on them, is it? That wouldn’t be discriminatory, would it? After all, anyone is free to own multiple pieces of property.
To be honest, I have actually heard people bragging about this kind of voter fraud. I have heard people brag about voting twice, once in each town, or voting in the town where they don’t live. No one seems concerned about this though, even though it is likely more prevalent than an illegal alien voting.
to present ID to register to vote. When you move to town, the town or city clerk sends you registration papers to your address. You’re supposed to send them back. If you don’t, you’re not registered.
If you have not returned a local census you might be moved to the inactive list. I found that happen to me on Thursday. I was baffled because I voted in the presidential primary, the last time I had the opportunity to vote. I had to fill out an affidavit and show ID, which in this case I credit with protecting my vote. I did get to cast a non-provisional and it took 5 minutes rather than 1, but I’m concerned that this will be discouraging enough to some that they will leave without voting.
I saw the same thing happen at my precinct.
If you haven’t voted in 2 years and you didn’t return the census, that’s one thing. We had people who voted in May’s town election moved to inactive over the summer because they failed to return their local census. That seemed a bit silly to me.
VoterID is that valid ID’s don’t always match the registration list. The problem of voter purges such as Rick Scott’s is that databases are not cross-referenced and contain all kinds of inaccuracies.
VoterID has to be part of a system with accurate and up-to-date registration records. Showing an ID when you vote isn’t enough to prevent anything. It has to be compared to the voter rolls. Can you imagine the number of challenges if people show up with valid IDs that don’t match the rolls. John Smith moves, but hasn’t updated his ID. Now he can’t vote because his ID doesn’t match the registration address.