Voter ID Laws Set To Face Strictest Test

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

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.

Its certainly not easier to get an ID then it is to vote, and the requirement is being made for no purpose that the government can articulate. In addition there are real barriers to some people for getting an ID. (like the birth certificate person that was mentioned earlier)

The numbers are actually sort of irrelevant though. Some legitimate voters will certainly be disenfranchised in order to solve a problem that the government admits simply does not exist. That has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of in my entire life.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

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.

Uhmm, its super easy to collect evidence on it. Are you trying to tell me that the people conducting this personal voter fraud are so slick that not even once have they voted somewhere where the real person attempted to vote later? Not one time where a voter roll purge has later revealed that the person voted after they were dead?

My ass. In this respect, as in every other, if the government is going to restrict a right they have to do so with cause. Saying otherwise is insanity.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

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.

well how the f*ck to do you think they will prove it? an ID perhaps?

that is the goddamn dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Thats like telling a liquor store to prove that the person buying a bottle of Jack is really over 21 instead of the person proving to the store that they are 21.

this whole "unconstitutional" thing is bullshit too. It is the same reason that stores cannot and do not ask for ID when using a credit card.....so what happens? People steal credit cards run up the bill and the CC companies get stuck eating the money.....which eventually gets passed back to legit customer through fees hikes and high interest rates.

fuckin' lawyers.

 

[CycloWizard]

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.

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.

Indiana requires all adults to have a photo ID whether or not they plan on voting. My 25 year old brother has never had a license but has always had a state ID card. He used it 7 years ago to register to vote and now he can still use it to vote. No additional burden has been placed on him by requiring him to show an ID to vote. The ID cost $10 last time I got one (2005). I don't know if this is true in other states, since I've only ever been licensed in Indiana myself. I would support giving out free IDs in the case where a state ID is otherwise not legally required. I cannot support the idea that someone can walk up to a polling location and claim to be a person without any ID and vote. I have to show an ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, even some DVDs, but not to vote? Give me a break.

 

[BoomerD]

I'm mixed on this subject. While I believe a person SHOULD have to prove they are who they say they are in order to help eliminate vote fraud, the logistics of providing everyone with acceptable identification is challenging. As has been already mentioned, many older people have never had any form of ID in their lives, nor do they have birth certificates available to prove who they are to get the ID in the first place. Sure, some other form of identification might be substitued, like baptism records, marraige licenses, etc., but again, not everyone has those either.
Next challenge is the cost. While $10 or $25 may not be much to most of us, for some people, that may be several day's worth of food...and they shouldn't have to choose between eating and being able to vote.
The right to vote is one of the basic tenents of our country, and trying to deny any legal citizen that right is just unacceptable...

I don't have the solution to this problem, there are too many variables that could throw a monkey-wrench into the best laid plans...

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
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.
.

Where is your right in the Constitution to vote for President?

 

[Pabster]

Justices Indicate They May Uphold Voter ID Rules

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Pabster
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.

I've worked polls several times as a volunteer, once when I was a fresh-faced 18 yo, and in 2004 as a volunteer legal monitor in NH.

All I can say is those "80 year old women" rock. They are utterly honest and uniformally sharp as a tack. I wish ladies (and gents) like that ran more things-we'd be a heck of a lot better off.

Plus remember that the US Justice Dept, for years, has had a high priority program to monitor election honesty. Frankly, outside of ethical cesspools like Chicago, New Orleans and the like, I suspect that "retail" voter fraud is a miniscule, trivial problem.

The problem with our voting system is with it's design and implementation at the levels above the polling places.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
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.
.

Where is your right in the Constitution to vote for President?

Ooohh, nice try. Swing and a miss though.

The constitution does not provide a specific right to vote for president, however it DOES require that if there is to be voting it must be done in a manner that provides everyone an equal opportunity to vote. There are in fact a whole load of amendments to the constitution that in effect say that if there is voting for president it must be completely non discriminatory... but you are right that they could get rid of the voting altogether if they wanted to. An ID law such as this that certainly targets a segment of society (those who do not have IDs are almost entirely of a few specific socioeconomic groups), then it is unconstitutional.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Quite a logical breakdown isnt it? The same people who cry foul about voter fraud when their candidate loses are the first to cry foul when the states require a valid ID to vote.

All I can get out of it is these people only care when their candidate gets the screw job on voter fraud. In other words they are'nt sincere in their care for the integrity of the system. Only that their side wins.

 

[FoBoT]

some types of candidates rely on voter fraud in certain areas of their constituency

 

[351Cleveland]

FWIW...

As a resident of Indiana, here is how the law works:

You must have a government issued photo ID to vote in the booth on election day. These ID cards are available for FREE from the BMV. For the record, most people in Indiana register to vote at the BMV. If you do not have a photo ID on the day of election, you can cast a provisional ballot and provide photo ID within 10 days of the election. When we go to the polls, we wait in a line until we get to the voter roll log book. We then are shown our name, address, and a copy of our signature. We sign the book (FWIW, my signature looks a lot different then when I registered to vote 12 years ago). We show ID, verify signature (as can be done) address, and photo. We THEN go into the booth. The only difference between this and the first time I voted? Showing ID. NOTHING is different. It isnt intrusive, obstructive, or discriminatory. It doesnt not slow down the voting process (always a line, the time in the booth causes that).

It isnt a poll tax... no money involved. ID IS FREE. For the people who complain that some people just cant make it to the BMV to get an ID... a) how do they get to the polls to vote, b) how does that same person register to vote, and c) there is always absentee balloting. It requires proof of identifications that everyone should have (birth certificate, SS card, utility bill, etc.).

I still havent heard the Indiana law refuted in any way. What is the logical arguement against it? Tell us how it is unconstitutional. What provision of the constitution does it break? The court did have a good point during arguements... where are the disenfranchised voters that were denied their right to vote due to this law? Why was it a political party filing the lawsuit and not individuals who have been wronged?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

I still havent heard the Indiana law refuted in any way. What is the logical arguement against it? Tell us how it is unconstitutional. What provision of the constitution does it break? The court did have a good point during arguements... where are the disenfranchised voters that were denied their right to vote due to this law? Why was it a political party filing the lawsuit and not individuals who have been wronged?

There are about 5 posts in this thread that refute it...here is a link to a good article that completely demolishes the argument for this law. As for your other questions they are extremely easily answered. The legal argument here is what is known as a 'facial challenge'. Ie. It is challenging the law on the grounds that it is so obviously and egregiously unconstitutional, and its enactment would provide injury that would not be easily remedied after the fact that it is being challenged on its face as opposed to a specific wronged plaintiff. For example if tomorrow some state passed a law that said black people couldn't vote anymore, you wouldn't have to wait for an election to happen in which black people were denied the right to vote in order to sue to have it overturned... it's so obviously unconstitutional that you can sue ahead of time. This is especially important with elections, because once the election happens... the people who were disenfranchised are sort of screwed. You can't just call a re-do or anything.

Anyways though so everyone can easily read it I'll quote you the relevant part of the article as to why the ID is A.) not always free, and B.) not always readily accessable for the millions of voting age people in the US that do not have a government issued ID.

The process of assembling the necessary documents and taking the other requisite steps involves substantial time and resources. An Indiana applicant for a nondriver's photo ID must obtain a certified birth certificate issued by the state or county of birth, which can require payment of a fee. And because some Indiana citizens were born in states or counties that require a photo ID to get the birth certificate?including Marion County, the largest county in Indiana?a person who seeks a birth certificate in order to get a photo ID could find himself trapped in an unending bureaucratic loop. Predictably, applicants often wind up making multiple trips to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

That is the burden presented. Now you have to ask yourself, what is this law designed to prevent? It's designed to prevent a form of in person voting fraud that has never been shown to exist in any way shape or form. Therefore we are imposing a burden on certain groups of voters in order to stop something that your own studies say doesn't exist. From a logical standpoint the government is making up new rules to stop things that aren't there. That's not only stupid, but dangerous. Should we enact new laws forcing people to prove they aren't reptiods before voting? There have been exactly as many cases of reptoid attacks in Indiana as there have been of in person voter fraud.

Finally you mention that people without ID can just use an absentee ballot. Exactly. If your aim with this law is to prevent fraud, even magical fairy land fraud like this is, it is extremely transparent to leave untouched the method that people ACTUALLY USE to commit voter fraud while attacking other kinds.

There you go, happy?

 

[Fern]

I've read all these articles for and against. The "against" say evidence of fraud of theis type. The "for" say no evidence anybody has been disenfranchised. They also cite much much lower statistics on people without IDs etc. Whatever...

Firstky, if you're going to legitimately claim no evidence of voter fraud you're going to have to explain the audit techniques employed to make that determination. So far not a word about that.

I don't have a problem with doing some real work on the problem. While as a CPA we're used to devising techniques to uncover fraud, trthere is a fundamental problem as the law now exists:

If you don't need an ID (which we don't here, much less a photo ID), how can you go back and audit the voter role against those who voted? You see, you can't under the law ask them for an ID since one isn't required in the first place.

IOW, we have little or no way of knowing if such fraud has occurred under the current system.

I might add that we also have no real way of knowing if the supposed 10% predominately Dem voters have no ID. How the fuck do you really know who they are (since they have no ID), or for that matter that they really DO not have an ID? Just because they say so? That's the fucking lame kind of BS that masquarades as a "real study" in this political arena.

But we have far deeper underlying problems. For one, the integrety of many state DLs is a big question.

You'd be amazed (1) at how easy to get a state DL with such lame documents as a utility bill. Those don't even have photos etc. (2) Here in NC for the longest time our DMV willingly issued DLs to known illegal immigrants, AND entered them on voting register.

So, our system is suspect from top to bottom. Not even requiring DL's with a photo can prevent voter fraud.

IMO, we DO need a REAL (not some "show me a water bill" POS thing) national ID card. While I would mandate that the police are prevented from demanding it, all gov entitlement-type programs (welfare, medicaid, public education etc) should be able to use the card to verify who they are providing services to. I think it s/b required to register and/or vote also.

An illegal vote deprives another valid vote, cancelling it out. The issue is partially one of who gets deprived of their vote? Someone who can prove that they are a valid voter, or someone who can't?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Fern, normally your logic is pretty good.. but in this thread it's just terrible.

First of all, many states have different requirements for photo ID's... as mentioned previously some places require a certified birth certificate (which hilariously enough in some areas requires a photo ID to get... har har). Just because some places it is easy to get does not mean that in all places it is so. Your argument is getting very close to "Well prove there ISN'T voter fraud!". If nothing else you are equating two arguments that have very different standards of proof for obvious reasons.

What possible cause do you have to question the answers of the respondants to a survey about if they have an ID or not? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What motivation is there to lie? If anything I would imagine people would lie and say yes... because not having an ID is embarassing.

People audit voter lists all the time, and absolutely no ID is required. The secret ballot covers who you voted for, not if you voted at all. After most every close election people check the voter rolls to see who voted and compare them to the recently deceased, etc. They even sometimes find that dead people have voted. Do you know how they ALWAYS vote? Absentee ballot... a method not addressed in this 'reform'. How could anyone have been disenfranchised yet anyway? There hasn't been an election since the law was put into effect. Anyways, the burden of proof is 100% on those looking to restrict Americans' right to vote.

Ugh, you know what? Forget it. This argument has been had before. Newspapers, analysts, the Justice Department, THE STATE THAT ENACTED THIS RETARDED LAW, and fucking Congress have all examined the issue and said that fraud of this type is simply not a problem. You guys just don't want to believe it, and you know why you don't. *wink wink*.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
Voters already prove their identities with a signature. Requiring anything that costs money, such as an ID (

STOP RIGHT THERE!

As I said in the last thread about this topic, the suit is about the law here in Indiana. Part of the law was a requirement for the BMV to issue free, non-driver identification, to anyone who wanted it, and had the documentary backup that a driver's license normally requires. And if a trip to the BMV is too onerous, any registered voter can place a phone call to the county clerk and request that a mail-in ballot be sent to their address of record, ID or not.

I'm going to copy and paste this crap, because apparently none of the people who are against this law ever read it, or prefer to forget it.

You have to have a photo ID to rent a $20 DVD from Blockbuster, I cannot fathom why people think electing persons to office where they'll be in charge of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars of taxpayers money should be any less important.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XMan

STOP RIGHT THERE!

As I said in the last thread about this topic, the suit is about the law here in Indiana. Part of the law was a requirement for the BMV to issue free, non-driver identification, to anyone who wanted it, and had the documentary backup that a driver's license normally requires. And if a trip to the BMV is too onerous, any registered voter can place a phone call to the county clerk and request that a mail-in ballot be sent to their address of record, ID or not.

I'm going to copy and paste this crap, because apparently none of the people who are against this law ever read it, or prefer to forget it.

You have to have a photo ID to rent a $20 DVD from Blockbuster, I cannot fathom why people think electing persons to office where they'll be in charge of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars of taxpayers money should be any less important.

Interesting... so why do you want to bother with this law anyway if the ID part is so easily circumvented?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan

STOP RIGHT THERE!

As I said in the last thread about this topic, the suit is about the law here in Indiana. Part of the law was a requirement for the BMV to issue free, non-driver identification, to anyone who wanted it, and had the documentary backup that a driver's license normally requires. And if a trip to the BMV is too onerous, any registered voter can place a phone call to the county clerk and request that a mail-in ballot be sent to their address of record, ID or not.

I'm going to copy and paste this crap, because apparently none of the people who are against this law ever read it, or prefer to forget it.

You have to have a photo ID to rent a $20 DVD from Blockbuster, I cannot fathom why people think electing persons to office where they'll be in charge of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars of taxpayers money should be any less important.

Interesting... so why do you want to bother with this law anyway if the ID part is so easily circumvented?

Circumvented? You mean getting a mail-in ballot? You still have to be a registered voter, which is done at the BMV.

The main thing this law is going to eliminate is any Chicago style dead man voting scenarios.

 

[351Cleveland]

eskimospy (really, why are you spying on us?)

Meh... im not sorting through an editorial on the Indiana law. If you had cited some relevant code or Constitutional provision I would look at it, but slate.com is not what I would call reference material. I read the excerpt you posted.

The cost of obtaining/replacing such basic documents as a SS card or a birth certificate should be bore by the citizen for the simple reason that they are used for many uses beyond obtaining a driver's license/photo ID card. To call this a cost of voting is a stretch. Chances are, if you are obtaining these documents, you arent obtaining them solely for the ability to vote. You cannot find (legal) employment, rent a movie, open a bank account, cash a check, or many of the other basic and essential functions people need to perform without these documents. Hell, you can barely register to vote without it.

So, since it is your responsibility as a citizen to have those basic documents in your posession regardless of if you are seeking a photo ID for voting purposes, the cost of obtaining those documents cannot be a cost of obtaining a voter ID. There is also ample time to navigate the bureaucratic bull befor the election. Lest we forget, this law is not a secret. This law has been around for 6 elections. It is advertised without mercy for months before the election. Short of being deaf, blind, and without human contact, I cannot fathom how it would be a suprise to anyone. Since it ISNT a suprise, then there should be ample time to obtain the required documentation.

Eh... it's a non-issue. Come June, the law will be upheld (potentially tweaked, but intact nonetheless), and voters will still be required to have ID when they vote in Indiana. Will it make a hill of beans difference in election fraud? Hard to say... kinda like "Has the US government prevented further attacks on the US?" Hard to prove... maybe... maybe not.

Good talk. You made some good points, just not enough to persuade me that this law is bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: XMan

Circumvented? You mean getting a mail-in ballot? You still have to be a registered voter, which is done at the BMV.

The main thing this law is going to eliminate is any Chicago style dead man voting scenarios.

No it won't. Dead people voting is almost exclusively through absentee ballots. There have been numerous accounts and convictions around dead people voting absentee but absolutely none from polling place fraud.

This law is going to eliminate absolutely nothing. It's a blatant partisan attempt at voter suppression and you know it.

EDIT: fixed quotes

 

[351Cleveland]

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.

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.

The law in question (Indiana) does provide free identification cards. Fun thing is, you get them the same place that darn near everyone registers to vote - the BMV. Two birds with but one stone

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: XMan

Circumvented? You mean getting a mail-in ballot? You still have to be a registered voter, which is done at the BMV.

The main thing this law is going to eliminate is any Chicago style dead man voting scenarios.

No it won't. Dead people voting is almost exclusively through absentee ballots. There have been numerous accounts and convictions around dead people voting absentee but absolutely none from polling place fraud.

This law is going to eliminate absolutely nothing. It's a blatant partisan attempt at voter suppression and you know it.

EDIT: fixed quotes

... which is why voter turn-out is up since the law was enacted. With that increase in voter turn-out, I should add that Democrats made a huge comeback in the last national/state election in Indiana. It has not hurt Democratic efforts at all from what I can see.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
eskimospy (really, why are you spying on us?)

Meh... im not sorting through an editorial on the Indiana law. If you had cited some relevant code or Constitutional provision I would look at it, but slate.com is not what I would call reference material. I read the excerpt you posted.

The cost of obtaining/replacing such basic documents as a SS card or a birth certificate should be bore by the citizen for the simple reason that they are used for many uses beyond obtaining a driver's license/photo ID card. To call this a cost of voting is a stretch. Chances are, if you are obtaining these documents, you arent obtaining them solely for the ability to vote. You cannot find (legal) employment, rent a movie, open a bank account, cash a check, or many of the other basic and essential functions people need to perform without these documents. Hell, you can barely register to vote without it.

So, since it is your responsibility as a citizen to have those basic documents in your posession regardless of if you are seeking a photo ID for voting purposes, the cost of obtaining those documents cannot be a cost of obtaining a voter ID. There is also ample time to navigate the bureaucratic bull befor the election. Lest we forget, this law is not a secret. This law has been around for 6 elections. It is advertised without mercy for months before the election. Short of being deaf, blind, and without human contact, I cannot fathom how it would be a suprise to anyone. Since it ISNT a suprise, then there should be ample time to obtain the required documentation.

Eh... it's a non-issue. Come June, the law will be upheld (potentially tweaked, but intact nonetheless), and voters will still be required to have ID when they vote in Indiana. Will it make a hill of beans difference in election fraud? Hard to say... kinda like "Has the US government prevented further attacks on the US?" Hard to prove... maybe... maybe not.

Good talk. You made some good points, just not enough to persuade me that this law is bad.

Well it's not actually your responsibility as a citizen to have those documents. They aren't a requirement. There are also a lot of people (the elderly) who have already set up these things but have since misplaced their documents.

I think you really are missing my point though, my point is a basic point of constitutional law. If you are restricting rights, you need cause. The state has not shown even the slightest shred of cause. This doesn't just apply to voting, but lots of things. By this logic the mere potential of a problem is enough to restrict something. I don't think I need to tell anyone here how incredibly easy that is to abuse.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

... which is why voter turn-out is up since the law was enacted. With that increase in voter turn-out, I should add that Democrats made a huge comeback in the last national/state election in Indiana. It has not hurt Democratic efforts at all from what I can see.

Just because attempts at suppression are not successful on the whole doesn't mean that they aren't attempts at suppression. If you want to argue that voter fraud is the area of Democratic election crime, voter suppression is the Republican flavor of choice.

Doesn't it seem a bit strange to you that Republicans keep crying about rampant voter fraud, and yet every bipartisan and independant investigation keep coming up with nothing? Does it not make you wonder a bit as to the motivations of those making these laws?

 

[308nato]

one of the broads used as an example of how unfair the law is Is registered to vote in two states.....and cheats on her taxes

hee hee