• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Supreme court OK's Indiana Voter ID law

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,214
2
0
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: Skoorb
But Hasen said Steven?s opinion made clear that if a specific group of voters could show the law imposed unique burdens on them, they could challenge the law?s constitutionality.
If there's something about a person that makes having a valid ID a burden, I don't want them voting anyway.
I don't want someone that thinks like you to vote. Thankfully, who either of us thinks should vote is irrelevant.
And that is part of the problem.

 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
I support the idea generally, but also think the state should be required to provide a valid state ID at no cost to those who don't already have a valid form of state identification.
And in Indiana, they do... and it's free.

EDIT: Sorry, someone already pointed that out. :)
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,852
14,003
136
Proponents haven't shown any actual need for such a law- the whole notion of "voter fraud" is a myth.

http://truthaboutfraud.org/

Nor do many understand quite how restrictive some laws really are in terms of requirements. I dealt with it recently when my elderly father in law moved from Oregon to Colorado. Because he no longer drove, he'd inadvertently allowed his Oregon ID to expire, which wasn't of any consequence at all when he lived in Oregon. But in Colorado, he couldn't register to vote w/o photo ID, and he couldn't get photo ID with an expired ID from another state- SS card, SS Checks, retirement fund checks, credit cards, utility bills as proof of residency- not good enough. He had to send to the county seat of the small town in Oklahoma where he was born to get a copy of his birth certificate... but he had to send a copy of valid state photo ID to get it... it was almost a catch-22, but the folks in Oklahoma accepted his expired Oregon ID, and it all worked out...

Lots of seniors are in similar situations, as are people at the low end of the totem pole who basically live in the cash economy... by some estimates, as many as 10% or so of eligible voters lack the credentials to vote under these new systems...

Nonetheless, the drive to tailor the electorate goes on... Show me that there's a problem, and then we can talk about a solution, OK? Don't insinuate, don't offer up the usual innuendo, don't tell me how it protects the voting process from an imaginary threat- document voter fraud at a level suffient to justify state and personal expense and the PITA factor for many of the citizens affected.

The whole thing is kinda like the Iraqi nuclear program- the problem didn't exist except in the minds of the faithful...
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Be it a corrective or preventative action... I dont see it as a bad idea.

The whole notion of "wait until there is actually a problem" is a bit after-the-fact. Kinda like how they waited for the paper ballot system to fail before they started to replace it.

There will always be exceptions to the rule. Rest assured, in Indiana, you can still vote without an ID, but you have to follow that up with proof of identification at some point. You wont be denied the ability to cast a ballot when you show up at the poles.

I just dont understand how people do anything without ID anymore. I had to show mine 4 times to different people today for various reasons.

Oh well. It's law.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,826
21,999
136
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Be it a corrective or preventative action... I dont see it as a bad idea.

The whole notion of "wait until there is actually a problem" is a bit after-the-fact. Kinda like how they waited for the paper ballot system to fail before they started to replace it.

There will always be exceptions to the rule. Rest assured, in Indiana, you can still vote without an ID, but you have to follow that up with proof of identification at some point. You wont be denied the ability to cast a ballot when you show up at the poles.

I just dont understand how people do anything without ID anymore. I had to show mine 4 times to different people today for various reasons.

Oh well. It's law.
Actually the 'wait until there is actually a problem' is the cornerstone of constitutional law. The problem here is that the courts (mistakenly) did not apply the strict scrutiny standard when I believe they should have. With anything subject to strict scrutiny you have to show there is a problem before you start limiting people's rights. Trust me, this is a very very very good thing.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,852
14,003
136
Please, 351Cleveland, paper ballots haven't "failed", they've just become inconvenient- It doesn't really matter if election results are known the next day or the next week, other than to the extremely impatient...

Electronic voting requirements of HAVA were just another solution in search of a problem, often creating more problems than they allegedly solved...
 

shabby

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,748
20
81
Wow i cant believe you yanks didnt need photo id before to vote, thats sad.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it interesting a lot of the people who rag on the system for voter fraud turn around and resist requiring some proof of who you are to vote.

This is a good step in the right direction to validate who is casting the vote.
An interesting point, but one that would seem to work the other way around as well. A lot of people who laugh at the idea of voter fraud also seem to support measured taken to combat it.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
i don't have a problem with this.

i do think you should be showing ID to vote.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, 351Cleveland, paper ballots haven't "failed", they've just become inconvenient- It doesn't really matter if election results are known the next day or the next week, other than to the extremely impatient...

Electronic voting requirements of HAVA were just another solution in search of a problem, often creating more problems than they allegedly solved...
Florida 2000... how many flavors of chads are there again? :)

 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Be it a corrective or preventative action... I dont see it as a bad idea.

The whole notion of "wait until there is actually a problem" is a bit after-the-fact. Kinda like how they waited for the paper ballot system to fail before they started to replace it.

There will always be exceptions to the rule. Rest assured, in Indiana, you can still vote without an ID, but you have to follow that up with proof of identification at some point. You wont be denied the ability to cast a ballot when you show up at the poles.

I just dont understand how people do anything without ID anymore. I had to show mine 4 times to different people today for various reasons.

Oh well. It's law.
Actually the 'wait until there is actually a problem' is the cornerstone of constitutional law. The problem here is that the courts (mistakenly) did not apply the strict scrutiny standard when I believe they should have. With anything subject to strict scrutiny you have to show there is a problem before you start limiting people's rights. Trust me, this is a very very very good thing.
I guess I missed that lecture in my government class. We takes steps all the time to prevent problems/disasters. I dont wait for my kids to run into traffic before I teach them to not play in the street. Will they get hurt playing in the street? Probably not... but I dont want to take that chance. I can get a speeding ticket for no reason other than someone's judgement that I was traveling too fast for that particular road. Has anyone been hurt? Nope... but the potential was there, and as such I have to resrict my speed (and show ID when the cop pulls me over).

I guess I do not see this as a limitation on anyone's rights. I think this was hashed out 4 months ago when the SCOTUS heard the case. There is nothing inherentently limiting in providing identification. You walk up, show ID, sign the poll book, and vote. Dont have an ID on you? Fill out a provisional ballot and provide ID later to ratify your vote. ID's are free. Bring the appropriate documents with you and get your ID. It isnt as if elections happen every other weekend... there is plenty of time to get this stuff in order. I would disagree with enacting the law 2 weeks before the election... but we allowed 2 years or something silly like that before it was actually enforced in Indiana.

To the guy who's father in law moved. I feel for your father in law... but at the end of the day, inadvertent or not, he let his ID lapse. Lack of foresight IMO. No offense to either of you intended :)

I know we arent going to agree. That's okay. It's law now. It will be law in many more states soon.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
I find it interesting a lot of the people who rag on the system for voter fraud turn around and resist requiring some proof of who you are to vote.

This is a good step in the right direction to validate who is casting the vote.
An interesting point, but one that would seem to work the other way around as well. A lot of people who laugh at the idea of voter fraud also seem to support measured taken to combat it.
It isnt a matter of laughing at fraud so much as laughing at the automatic assumption that if a particular candidate didnt win, then it MUST be Fraud (Ohio 2004). The same people SEARCHING for (not responding to complaints of) fraud are the same ones who do not want any control of the system. They WANT to be able to cry fraud. They want that possiblity of corruption in the system, even if it is never proven (not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge, or something like that). Once you right that "fraud" bell, it cant be unrung. In that respect, alleging fraud is very much a political tool used to illegitimize the person who won the election.

Take Florida 2000. It was enough to get in there and ACT like there was fraud despite whether or not it existed. It didnt matter that there might or might not have been any evidence. It was the fact that it was a serious charge and had to be dealt with. These days, it really doesnt matter if you are guilty... once you are branded, you will always be branded.

So that is how hollering "election fraud" in a crowded theater is a political tool, and how this new law, at least in some respects, is being fought against, because it limits or eliminates that political tool.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,732
1
0
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: AAjax
Indy star article

?States should have the ability to implement appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems from fraud,? Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response. ?We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from potential fraudulent activity.?


Well Im sure this will cause some discussion. I for one think its a good thing. Voting integrity should have checks and balances. With all the voter fraud accusations this year perhaps this and an end to electronic voting are steps in the right direction.
This is a horrible Idea. Why is a state issued license not enough. This disenfranchises the poor and the elderly. Old people will have a hell of a time getting all their shit together and for what other purpose would the poor want a national form of identification. I mean hell they take all those summer abroad classes in college to Europe and New Zealand. They probably have one anyway... right?

This is just another step towards the National Id card. It is stupid, unnecessary and another federal intrusion.
how many "poor people" who allegedly cannot afford an ID card have a cellphone?....probably a lot.

How many "poor people" will have to sacrifice a couple of packs of smokes so that they can purchase an ID so they can vote?...again probably a lot.

If you can afford a cellular phone to gab to your other "poor" buddies, or you can afford to inhale smoke from a $40 carton of cigarettes, polluting your lungs and eventually getting cancer or emphysema and becoming a burden on the rest of society by having them foot the bill of your medical care....you can afford a goddamned ID card.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,826
21,999
136
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

I guess I missed that lecture in my government class. We takes steps all the time to prevent problems/disasters. I dont wait for my kids to run into traffic before I teach them to not play in the street. Will they get hurt playing in the street? Probably not... but I dont want to take that chance. I can get a speeding ticket for no reason other than someone's judgement that I was traveling too fast for that particular road. Has anyone been hurt? Nope... but the potential was there, and as such I have to resrict my speed (and show ID when the cop pulls me over).

I guess I do not see this as a limitation on anyone's rights. I think this was hashed out 4 months ago when the SCOTUS heard the case. There is nothing inherentently limiting in providing identification. You walk up, show ID, sign the poll book, and vote. Dont have an ID on you? Fill out a provisional ballot and provide ID later to ratify your vote. ID's are free. Bring the appropriate documents with you and get your ID. It isnt as if elections happen every other weekend... there is plenty of time to get this stuff in order. I would disagree with enacting the law 2 weeks before the election... but we allowed 2 years or something silly like that before it was actually enforced in Indiana.

To the guy who's father in law moved. I feel for your father in law... but at the end of the day, inadvertent or not, he let his ID lapse. Lack of foresight IMO. No offense to either of you intended :)

I know we arent going to agree. That's okay. It's law now. It will be law in many more states soon.
I'm not sure if you missed the lecture or not, but you should go and listen to one then. It's really really important. While interestingly enough the right to vote is not actually explicitly guaranteed in the constitution, it's one of the most fundamental rights that we have and one I believe should be subject to the same levels of protection as freedom of speech, etc. (it has been treated similarly in previous USSC cases).

Your analogy between speeding and voter ID is confusing the reasonable basis standard with the compelling interest/strict scrutiny standard. In order to restrict one of these fundamental rights the government has to prove it has a compelling interest, and that it's accomplishing that interest by the least intrusive means possible. The fact that none of these states seem to be able to muster up a single case of in person voter fraud that would be prevented by this law, it is very difficult for me to buy that this law is the result of a compelling interest. So yes, they are passing new restrictions on people's rights without actually having any particularly good reason for doing so. (outside of partisan advantage of course). I'm sure you don't think it's a burden to go get one of those ID's. Then again, you aren't one of the people that those opposing the law are thinking of.

No rational person should want the government passing legislation restricting their personal rights without some sort of reason for doing so. Ie. A harm that could be identified. In this case, there was none. It's a partisan political move, nothing more. One look at who votes for these laws could tell you that.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
79
91
Now that they have paved the way for voter id's it's time to get on the same wavelength on voting machines and get those things working properly without glitches and malfunctions.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,606
1,829
126
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, 351Cleveland, paper ballots haven't "failed", they've just become inconvenient- It doesn't really matter if election results are known the next day or the next week, other than to the extremely impatient...

Electronic voting requirements of HAVA were just another solution in search of a problem, often creating more problems than they allegedly solved...
Florida 2000... how many flavors of chads are there again? :)
That was a lack of maintence not really a failure of the system. the booths hadn't been cleaned in some time.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,325
126
A few weeks ago I had to have my ID scanned to buy my daughter some damned childrens cold medicine. Having a state issued ID is a necessity in normal day to day life. I can't see how making someone show their ID before they vote is a burden. I am sure you can find a select few off the wall cases but for the most part this is a non issue. Hell, I know plenty of poor people and they ALL have ID.

On the other hand, how does one prove that we currently have an issue with people casting fraudulent votes if you can not ID them to prove who they are/are not?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Proponents haven't shown any actual need for such a law- the whole notion of "voter fraud" is a myth.

http://truthaboutfraud.org/

Nor do many understand quite how restrictive some laws really are in terms of requirements. I dealt with it recently when my elderly father in law moved from Oregon to Colorado. Because he no longer drove, he'd inadvertently allowed his Oregon ID to expire, which wasn't of any consequence at all when he lived in Oregon. But in Colorado, he couldn't register to vote w/o photo ID, and he couldn't get photo ID with an expired ID from another state- SS card, SS Checks, retirement fund checks, credit cards, utility bills as proof of residency- not good enough. He had to send to the county seat of the small town in Oklahoma where he was born to get a copy of his birth certificate... but he had to send a copy of valid state photo ID to get it... it was almost a catch-22, but the folks in Oklahoma accepted his expired Oregon ID, and it all worked out...

Lots of seniors are in similar situations, as are people at the low end of the totem pole who basically live in the cash economy... by some estimates, as many as 10% or so of eligible voters lack the credentials to vote under these new systems...

Nonetheless, the drive to tailor the electorate goes on... Show me that there's a problem, and then we can talk about a solution, OK? Don't insinuate, don't offer up the usual innuendo, don't tell me how it protects the voting process from an imaginary threat- document voter fraud at a level suffient to justify state and personal expense and the PITA factor for many of the citizens affected.

The whole thing is kinda like the Iraqi nuclear program- the problem didn't exist except in the minds of the faithful...
Did you even look before you bought into the propaganda in the link you posted? Probably not...

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933

It's no surprise you and other libs think like you do, your side seems to have written the book on vote buying and dead people voting.

It's just F'n sad that some people don't have the common sense to see that a photo ID makes sense and will help prevent and also nab fraudulent voters.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Look at how many dead people register and vote in Fla and in the high political machine precints in the north & north east.

I saw it happen in Florida for many years, documented also by following voter records of which polling place they voted at vs was the person able to vote physically.

It happened in the Boston suburbs when I was a kid.

How can one complain about electronic voting machines or disenfranchismentment of a voter, when you are not even willing to prove/ensure that the person is a voter.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Look at how many dead people register and vote in Fla and in the high political machine precints in the north & north east.

I saw it happen in Florida for many years, documented also by following voter records of which polling place they voted at vs was the person able to vote physically.

It happened in the Boston suburbs when I was a kid.

How can one complain about electronic voting machines or disenfranchismentment of a voter, when you are not even willing to prove/ensure that the person is a voter.
I grew up in Philly. The idea that voter fraud isn't real isn't reality. It can and does happen.

I think that the SCOTUS called this correctly. This is a free program that any legitimate voter can use. All people have to do is do it. The plaintiffs failed to produce ONE person who was unable to vote as a result of this law.

I think it's a good idea. If someone can produce a citizen who could not vote as a result, then I may reconsider. "Could not vote" doesn't mean they couldn't be bothered.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
76
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Look at how many dead people register and vote in Fla and in the high political machine precints in the north & north east.

I saw it happen in Florida for many years, documented also by following voter records of which polling place they voted at vs was the person able to vote physically.

It happened in the Boston suburbs when I was a kid.

How can one complain about electronic voting machines or disenfranchismentment of a voter, when you are not even willing to prove/ensure that the person is a voter.
I grew up in Philly. The idea that voter fraud isn't real isn't reality. It can and does happen.

I think that the SCOTUS called this correctly. This is a free program that any legitimate voter can use. All people have to do is do it. The plaintiffs failed to produce ONE person who was unable to vote as a result of this law.

I think it's a good idea. If someone can produce a citizen who could not vote as a result, then I may reconsider. "Could not vote" doesn't mean they couldn't be bothered.
But how about if they can't leave their house to go get an ID made? How are they supposed to vote?

;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY