Voter ID Laws Set To Face Strictest Test

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Story here.

I've never understood why this is such a partisan issue. How could one logically argue against requiring voters to prove their identities? There's absolutely no good reason not to require it -- in every state. For all the endless discussion of e-voting and hacking, it boggles my mind that many of the same people who critique and argue against that are out opposing such a basic requirement.
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Agreed.. The thought of illegal immigrants casting votes here makes me irate.
 

newmachineoverlord

Senior member
Jan 22, 2006
484
0
0
Voters already prove their identities with a signature. Requiring anything that costs money, such as an ID (which usually requires documentation which costs money) is an unconstitutional poll tax that disenfranchises the poor. There are no immigrants voting in american elections, and no one has produced any evidence of that happening to any significant degree.

The only reason republicans want to require voter ID's is to disenfranchise poor people, especially the working poor, since demographics that vote democratic are less likely to have the extra time and money to have an ID.

Disenfranchised by Voter ID Laws

TOOLBOX
Resize Text

Save/Share +
Digg
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Stumble It!
Reddit
Facebook
Print This
E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 6 comments about this item.
View All Comments »

Comments are closed for this item.
Discussion Policy
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
Monday, December 31, 2007; Page A14

Robert Barnes reported that the Supreme Court will hear a politically divisive voter identification case next week ["Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID; Justices to Hear Challenge to Law," front page, Dec. 25].

However, he buried the lead: Millions of eligible, registered voters lack identification -- they do not drive, fly or routinely enter office towers, although they do vote and have done so most of their adult lives. Many of them -- poor, elderly, disabled and student voters -- lack the stringent government-issued photo identification required by Indiana and four other states.

Eighteen percent of voters over 65 and more than 3 million disabled people lack government IDs. African Americans obtain driver's licenses at half the rate of whites. Many rural elderly were born at home and have no birth certificates. The costs of getting a government ID can be prohibitive: up to $45 for a driver's license, $97 for a passport and more than $200 for documents proving citizenship. In 1966, the Supreme Court held that a $1.50 fee was an unconstitutional poll tax. These burdens are equally onerous.

Voters already attest that they are registered. They risk fines and jail if they lie about it.

States have an interest in protecting the integrity of elections, but burdening the right to vote with illogical requirements that potentially disenfranchise millions of voters is the wrong approach.

ROBERT BRANDON

President

KAREN NEUMAN

Legal Director

Fair Elections Legal Network

Washington
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...0/AR2007123001906.html

oter ID and Fraud: Prove It Email Printer-Friendly
Tova Andrea Wang, The Century Foundation, 7/28/2005

The Century Foundation's Working Group on State Implementation of Election Reform just released a report called Balancing Access and Integrity that makes a number of innovative recommendations for the states to follow in order to comply effectively and fairly with the Help American Vote Act of 2004 in upcoming federal elections. While states are likely to be receptive to many of the suggestions the group makes, in one area the working group is definitely swimming against the tide: the report flatly states that there is no reason for states to go beyond HAVA's narrow provisions regarding the presentation of identification in order to vote.

Since the passage of that act many states have, in the name of fighting "fraud," plunged forward to enact stricter and stricter identification requirements for voting. Some 20 states now require all voters to present identification in order to cast a ballot?sometimes even mandating that it be a government issued photo identification. Yet the scholars of elections and election law involved in this group unanimously state that there is simply very scant evidence that such measures do anything to combat fraud. While the potential disenfranchising impacts of such requirements also need further study, the report points out that there is some anecdotal evidence that identification requirements serve to disenfranchise major segments of the voting population.

Since the publication of the report, some real data has started to materialize that supports these arguments.

For example, after practically every lawyer in the state scoured the land for fraudulent votes in Washington State because of the election litigation surrounding the gubernatorial race, only six cases of alleged double voting were found.

Similarly, in Ohio?perhaps the only other state to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Washington?a statewide survey found that of the 9,078,728 votes cast in Ohio's 2002 and 2004 general elections, a total of four were deemed as ineligible or "fraudulent" and found by the board of elections and county prosecutors to be legally actionable.

As we further cite in the report, Georgia Secretary of State Kathy Cox wrote in a letter to Governor Sonny Purdue opposing the state's new identification bill:

One of the primary justifications given by the Legislature for the passage of the photo identification provisions of House Bill 244?the elimination of voter ID fraud at the polls?is an unfounded justification. I cannot recall one documented case of voter fraud during my tenure as Secretary of State or Assistant Secretary of State that specifically related to the impersonation of a registered voter at voting polls. Our state currently has several practices and procedures in existence to ensure that such cases of voter fraud would have been detected if they in fact occurred, and at the very least, we would have complaints of voters who were unable to vote because someone had previously represented himself or herself as such person on that respective Election Day.

The data is also mounting that identification requirements have disproportionately disenfranchising impacts on certain communities. These include those less likely to have the requisite identification and those with less ability to obtain it?the poor, minorities, the elderly, the young, the elderly and urban residents. A June 2005 study by the University of Wisconsin found the following:

* An estimated 23 percent of persons aged 65 and over do not have a Wisconsin drivers license or a photo ID.
* An estimated 98,247 Wisconsin residents ages 35 through 64 also do not have either a drivers license or a photo ID.
* Less than half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults outside Milwaukee.
* For young adults ages 18-24 only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in Milwaukee County have a valid license compared to 71 percent of young white adults in the balance of the state

Previous studies have produced results in accordance with these findings. A study by the The National Commission on Federal Election Reform?the Carter-Ford Commission?found in 2001 that 6 to 10 percent of the existing American electorate lacks any form of state ID. A 1994 Justice Department study found that blacks in Louisiana were four to five times less likely than whites to have photo IDs.

Given all this piling on of negative evidence, both in terms of the efficacy of ID requirements in fulfilling the goal their advocate's claim and their impact on voting rights, it is somewhat mind boggling that so many state officials, as well as other groups working on this issue, are still vigorously pushing for greater expansion of what seems to be a rather useless yet dangerous tool. Shouldn't the burden of proof now shift to the advocates of more voter ID to demonstrate the value of their cause?

Tova Andrea Wang is a senior program officer and Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation.
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1067

edit: added the second article showing additional evidential support.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Let?s see? in many states all you need to register to vote is a driver?s license.

Now we have states that want to hand out driver?s licenses to illegal aliens.

Which means that illegal aliens might be able to walk into voters offices and register to vote with just their license.

And yet the politicians don?t seem to see anything wrong with this?
Thank goodness something like 80% of the people of NY opposed Spitzer?s plan.

I think illegal immigration could be the sleeper issue of the election, unless the economy really does go south...
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s see? in many states all you need to register to vote is a driver?s license.

Now we have states that want to hand out driver?s licenses to illegal aliens.

Which means that illegal aliens might be able to walk into voters offices and register to vote with just their license.

I can't tell if you're being partisan or ignorant. heh.

the one state that seriously proposed giving licenses to illegal aliens would have had the ID setup as something physically different than the regular driver's license and would have specifically been ineligible for use in registering to vote or anything to do with voting.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let?s see? in many states all you need to register to vote is a driver?s license.

Now we have states that want to hand out driver?s licenses to illegal aliens.

Which means that illegal aliens might be able to walk into voters offices and register to vote with just their license.
I can't tell if you're being partisan or ignorant. heh.

the one state that seriously proposed giving licenses to illegal aliens would have had the ID setup as something physically different than the regular driver's license and would have specifically been ineligible for use in registering to vote or anything to do with voting.
Oh snap! :)

Call me ignorant :)
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,960
278
126
Poster #2, who said its the illegal immigrants that are the problem?
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Poor people dont' have IDs, how can they? Only rich people have money and time to wait in line get this gold plated shiny paper call an ID!!

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
What I never understand is how this issue keeps being brought up time and time again. Sure, requiring IDs sounds fine in theory...but, and there is really no getting around this, you can't impose a monetary requirement on voting. Full stop. Now if these voter ID laws ALSO included free IDs handed out to every single eligible voter, that's fine, but for some reason that never seems to be included in voter ID bills. Until it is, I don't see how this stupid-ass idea could possibly be constitutional.

Of course, I'm a trusting guy, but putting on my cynic hat for a second, I can see a pretty good reason why certain folks want an ID requirement without giving people who don't have an ID a free and easy way to obtain one. Legal voters without IDs tend to be predominately Democratic, which means any voter ID requirement would almost certainly create an artificial bump for Republicans in elections. And low and behold, Republicans are the very people pushing the ID requirement. Now, trusting soul that I am, I'm sure this is just a coincidence...but man does it look bad.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
What I never understand is how this issue keeps being brought up time and time again. Sure, requiring IDs sounds fine in theory...but, and there is really no getting around this, you can't impose a monetary requirement on voting. Full stop. Now if these voter ID laws ALSO included free IDs handed out to every single eligible voter, that's fine, but for some reason that never seems to be included in voter ID bills. Until it is, I don't see how this stupid-ass idea could possibly be constitutional.

80 Percent Support Requiring Photo I.D. To Vote

Looks like you are in the minority here, Rainsford. I'll accept your position that the required ID be free to the voter. If that provision were guaranteed, would you support it?

Of course, I'm a trusting guy, but putting on my cynic hat for a second, I can see a pretty good reason why certain folks want an ID requirement without giving people who don't have an ID a free and easy way to obtain one. Legal voters without IDs tend to be predominately Democratic, which means any voter ID requirement would almost certainly create an artificial bump for Republicans in elections. And low and behold, Republicans are the very people pushing the ID requirement. Now, trusting soul that I am, I'm sure this is just a coincidence...but man does it look bad.

It's easy to look at it from a purely partisan, political perspective. In such case, one can easily assign motives to either side which are less than pure.

I think those who rail against electronic voting and other issues which affect the integrity of the vote MUST support something so basic as verification that the voter really is the voter. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. (And I don't know your position on electronic voting.)
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
80 Percent Support Requiring Photo I.D. To Vote

Looks like you are in the minority here, Rainsford. I'll accept your position that the required ID be free to the voter. If that provision were guaranteed, would you support it?

All that means is 80% of the country is stupid.

Voting is an inherent right. Only in the most extreme of circumstances is that right denied to a citizen. It should be the obligation of the state to prove that one is not eligible to vote, not the other way around.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,836
2,635
136
Well I guess there should also be a polling station within walking distance of every single residence in the US, otherwise you are requiring someone to either have a car, or use public transportation, thereby imposing a monetary requirement for voting.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,728
52,562
136
Wow this is great! I can just cut and paste my post from the other thread on why voter ID laws are crap. (I added a little though)

In short, voter fraud is incredibly difficult and ineffective to do by impersonating someone at a polling place. Not only do you have to worry about being arrested if the person you are impersonating actually comes into vote, but you're only casting one fraudulent vote in that case. Sure you can impersonate a whole load of people, but that takes a lot of manpower... and conspiracies that large aren't really practical. In short, it's a solution to a problem that the states themselves admit doesn't exist.

In order to abridge someones right to vote, you have to show why the interest of the state is greater then the burden you are placing on people. In this case the state's interest is stopping fraud that they admit does not even exist in exchange for placing restrictions on a segment of the voting populace. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the state has a hard case to prove when it is arguing for a ghost problem it says isn't there. That is why its a different problem then electronic voting fraud, etc. The impact is incredibly small to the integrity of the vote while you are assessing an undue burden to certain segments of society. (actually according to the state's own research the impact is literally ZERO, as they have not a single case of in person voter fraud to submit as evidence)

The far better way to commit voter fraud is with absentee and mail in ballots (which obviously cannot require any photo ID and would not require any additional ID under these laws). In those cases just a few people can put out LOADS of fraudulant ballots... a far preferable method. THAT is how people commit voter fraud.

Shockingly enough the 10% or so of voters that don't have photo ID vote extremely heavily Democratic, and these laws are being passed on party line votes by Republican legislatures. Gee, I wonder why. If you honestly think that the Republicans are doing this for any reason other then naked partisan advantage you are awfully naive. THAT is why a logical person could be against these voter ID laws.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
What I never understand is how this issue keeps being brought up time and time again. Sure, requiring IDs sounds fine in theory...but, and there is really no getting around this, you can't impose a monetary requirement on voting. Full stop. Now if these voter ID laws ALSO included free IDs handed out to every single eligible voter, that's fine, but for some reason that never seems to be included in voter ID bills. Until it is, I don't see how this stupid-ass idea could possibly be constitutional.

80 Percent Support Requiring Photo I.D. To Vote

Looks like you are in the minority here, Rainsford. I'll accept your position that the required ID be free to the voter. If that provision were guaranteed, would you support it?

I'm tired of the "X number of people support this" argument, that's complete bullshit, no matter what the issue is. Reality is not decided by popular vote, if 90% of the people believe something stupid, that doesn't make it any smarter. I'm fine being in the ideological minority, that's usually where the good ideas are found.

Still, if it was free and easy to obtain an ID, I don't really have any objections to requiring that you show it when you vote. As long as anonymity for the actual ballots was preserved, and the ID information was in no way recorded for later, I'm fine with it.

Of course, I'm a trusting guy, but putting on my cynic hat for a second, I can see a pretty good reason why certain folks want an ID requirement without giving people who don't have an ID a free and easy way to obtain one. Legal voters without IDs tend to be predominately Democratic, which means any voter ID requirement would almost certainly create an artificial bump for Republicans in elections. And low and behold, Republicans are the very people pushing the ID requirement. Now, trusting soul that I am, I'm sure this is just a coincidence...but man does it look bad.

It's easy to look at it from a purely partisan, political perspective. In such case, one can easily assign motives to either side which are less than pure.

I think those who rail against electronic voting and other issues which affect the integrity of the vote MUST support something so basic as verification that the voter really is the voter. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. (And I don't know your position on electronic voting.)

I DO think requiring that someone prove they are eligible to vote is a fundamental requirement of the system, and while voter registration can prove the named person can vote, it DOESN'T do anything to prove that the person trying to vote is that person...a good photo ID is in no way unreasonable.

But speaking of hypocrisy, I think it works the other way as well. ID requirements are a hot button issue when it comes to vote integrity, yet completely unreliable, hilariously insecure electronic voting machines tend to get ignored. Everyone seems to have their own pet issue, with few people really looking at the system as a whole.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Wow this is great! I can just cut and paste my post from the other thread on why voter ID laws are crap. (I added a little though)

In short, voter fraud is incredibly difficult and ineffective to do by impersonating someone at a polling place. Not only do you have to worry about being arrested if the person you are impersonating actually comes into vote, but you're only casting one fraudulent vote in that case. Sure you can impersonate a whole load of people, but that takes a lot of manpower... and conspiracies that large aren't really practical. In short, it's a solution to a problem that the states themselves admit doesn't exist.

In order to abridge someones right to vote, you have to show why the interest of the state is greater then the burden you are placing on people. In this case the state's interest is stopping fraud that they admit does not even exist in exchange for placing restrictions on a segment of the voting populace. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the state has a hard case to prove when it is arguing for a ghost problem it says isn't there. That is why its a different problem then electronic voting fraud, etc. The impact is incredibly small to the integrity of the vote while you are assessing an undue burden to certain segments of society. (actually according to the state's own research the impact is literally ZERO, as they have not a single case of in person voter fraud to submit as evidence)

The far better way to commit voter fraud is with absentee and mail in ballots (which obviously cannot require any photo ID and would not require any additional ID under these laws). In those cases just a few people can put out LOADS of fraudulant ballots... a far preferable method. THAT is how people commit voter fraud.

Shockingly enough the 10% or so of voters that don't have photo ID vote extremely heavily Democratic, and these laws are being passed on party line votes by Republican legislatures. Gee, I wonder why. If you honestly think that the Republicans are doing this for any reason other then naked partisan advantage you are awfully naive. THAT is why a logical person could be against these voter ID laws.

I hear what you're saying, but there is a key point you're missing. Sure, there are certainly concerns about intentional vote tampering in terms of a broad conspiracy...and in-person voting is a terrible way to carry that out. But there are also natural problems arising from million of people voting when they shouldn't. They might not all get together and decide they want a candidate to win, but they certainly have the opportunity to affect an election just through sheer numbers.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,824
2,613
136
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

I've never understood why this is such a partisan issue. How could one logically argue against requiring voters to prove their identities? There's absolutely no good reason not to require it -- in every state. For all the endless discussion of e-voting and hacking, it boggles my mind that many of the same people who critique and argue against that are out opposing such a basic requirement.

Disagree strongly. First, start with this premise-which I doubt, few, if any, will disagree with: The presidential election of 2000 clearly established that there were major flaws in the voting process in the United States. Those flaws basically arose from complicated and nonuniform ballot design, and antiquated methods of conducting recounts.

Secondly, the federal government's response to the 2000 fiasco was to mandate that all states use Diebold-type electionic voting machines, without any any sort of reliable audit trail left, such as a hard copy. Lever voting machines, like those used in my state for years, were outlawed, despite being clear and never having caused any problems.

Result-public confidence in the election process is down, not up. The "solution" has made the problem worse, not better.

On top of that fact situation, we have states like Indiana requiring government issued photo IDs to vote, despite there NEVER having been a case of false representation of a voter at the poll in that state. A bipartisan study required by Congress concluded that this type of voter fraud, nationwide, is miniscule and of no significance. To paraphrase Stalin, elections are decided by those who count the ballots, not those who cast therm.

Read the briefs in the Supreme Court case, there are dozens of documented cases where this photo ID requirement has disenfranchised REAL people who had previously voted all their adult life. One lady spent over $50 and made three trips to get her "free" government ID, only to eventually fail because her certified out of state birth certificate was in her maiden name (hardly an unusual situation).

The right to vote is a fundamental, core right in the United States. It is not a privilege. The state should not tamper with it to "correct" a hypothetical, nonexistant problem. This sort of law is nothing more than a subtle attempt to disenfranchise certain types of voters, those that would tend to vote for the Democratic Party. Creating a hurdle in the guise of solving a non-problem is a fraud.

I propose a more positive solution to our election morass: (1) No more gerrymandering-Congressional districts to be geographically the same shape, as much as possible, and determined by a bipartisan commission, and (2) voting machines (and this includes the entire process of reporting the results to the certifying state agency-usually the Secretary of the State) should comply, at a minimum, to the same standards that bankers use on ATMs. Secondary backups (like paper trails) should be a given.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

I've never understood why this is such a partisan issue. How could one logically argue against requiring voters to prove their identities? There's absolutely no good reason not to require it -- in every state. For all the endless discussion of e-voting and hacking, it boggles my mind that many of the same people who critique and argue against that are out opposing such a basic requirement.

Disagree strongly. First, start with this premise-which I doubt, few, if any, will disagree with: The presidential election of 2000 clearly established that there were major flaws in the voting process in the United States. Those flaws basically arose from complicated and nonuniform ballot design, and antiquated methods of conducting recounts.

Secondly, the federal government's response to the 2000 fiasco was to mandate that all states use Diebold-type electionic voting machines, without any any sort of reliable audit trail left, such as a hard copy. Lever voting machines, like those used in my state for years, were outlawed, despite being clear and never having caused any problems.

Result-public confidence in the election process is down, not up. The "solution" has made the problem worse, not better.

On top of that fact situation, we have states like Indiana requiring government issued photo IDs to vote, despite there NEVER having been a case of false representation of a voter at the poll in that state. A bipartisan study required by Congress concluded that this type of voter fraud, nationwide, is miniscule and of no significance. To paraphrase Stalin, elections are decided by those who count the ballots, not those who cast therm.

Read the briefs in the Supreme Court case, there are dozens of documented cases where this photo ID requirement has disenfranchised REAL people who had previously voted all their adult life. One lady spent over $50 and made three trips to get her "free" government ID, only to eventually fail because her certified out of state birth certificate was in her maiden name (hardly an unusual situation).

The right to vote is a fundamental, core right in the United States. It is not a privilege. The state should not tamper with it to "correct" a hypothetical, nonexistant problem. This sort of law is nothing more than a subtle attempt to disenfranchise certain types of voters, those that would tend to vote for the Democratic Party. Creating a hurdle in the guise of solving a non-problem is a fraud.

I didn't know about the studies done on face to face voter fraud. It sounds like it could be a problem, but it sounds like it might not happen enough to be a major concern.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,728
52,562
136
Originally posted by: Rainsford

I hear what you're saying, but there is a key point you're missing. Sure, there are certainly concerns about intentional vote tampering in terms of a broad conspiracy...and in-person voting is a terrible way to carry that out. But there are also natural problems arising from million of people voting when they shouldn't. They might not all get together and decide they want a candidate to win, but they certainly have the opportunity to affect an election just through sheer numbers.

Again though, the state currently in court about this has not been able to identify a SINGLE case in which this has happened. I mean... not even one. Does this really sound like a problem that needs fixing at the cost of certainly preventing legitimate people from voting? Surely everyone here can agree that before the government starts putting restrictions on how we can do things they should be able to demonstrate a cause for doing so.

In addition I'm not exactly sure what you even mean. Are you really trying to say that a million (or even thousands, or whatever) people are really going to the polls and impersonating someone, at risk of imprisonment, in order to record a single extra vote for their candidate of choice? I mean... seriously? The risk/reward on that is so out of whack that you would have to be seriously crazy in order to carry it out.

How would some people on these boards react to some additional restrictions for buying a gun when studies showed they were completely unnecessary?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

I've never understood why this is such a partisan issue. How could one logically argue against requiring voters to prove their identities? There's absolutely no good reason not to require it -- in every state. For all the endless discussion of e-voting and hacking, it boggles my mind that many of the same people who critique and argue against that are out opposing such a basic requirement.

At best it is another unfunded mandate, at worst an illegal poll tax. But first of all a way to keep the underclass from voting. I am for a thousand dollar fine for able bodied, eligible voters who don't show up to vote. A 100% voter turnout would rock!
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
To be honest, I always thought the greatest problem was our reliance on 80 year old women running the polls. Throw in electronic voting with that and, frankly, I'm amazed that we're able to have elections at all.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,380
8,509
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now if these voter ID laws ALSO included free IDs handed out to every single eligible voter, that's fine, but for some reason that never seems to be included in voter ID bills.


just about everyone already has an ID, and for those who can't afford them, the voter ID act that passed the house in 2006 contains provisions for them:

In response to criticism that this would be a burden for the poor, the bill stipulates that states must provide the identification cards free of charge to those who can't afford them.



Originally posted by: eskimospy

Again though, the state currently in court about this has not been able to identify a SINGLE case in which this has happened. I mean... not even one.

hard to prove a crime when there is no possible way to collect evidence on it.






voting is the most important thing in a republic and it needs to be 100% certain at every point.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
At best it is another unfunded mandate, at worst an illegal poll tax. But first of all a way to keep the underclass from voting. I am for a thousand dollar fine for able bodied, eligible voters who don't show up to vote. A 100% voter turnout would rock!

Ah, yes. Glaring hypocrisy at its finest. :roll:
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
This would deny hundreds of thousands of voters their legal right to vote. How about eligible to vote until proven otherwise? Put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the state.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,380
8,509
126
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
This would deny hundreds of thousands of voters their legal right to vote.
how many people of voting age don't have IDs? do you know any? does anyone know any?
How about eligible to vote until proven otherwise? Put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the state.
like i said, hard to prove a crime when you're not allowed to collect any evidence because you're afraid of disenfranchising this mythical ID-less adult.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,836
2,635
136
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
This would deny hundreds of thousands of voters their legal right to vote. How about eligible to vote until proven otherwise? Put the burden of proof where it belongs, on the state.

It wouldn't deny any US citizen their right to vote. Every US citizen is eligible to get a photo I.D., and the vast majority have them. Its probably easier to get an ID than it is to go vote.

Edit - well, maybe not easier, but on the same level.