Voter ID laws
iam_thatdude
Posts: 1,266 Member
Should voters b required to show valid id?
0
Replies
-
I thought they already were?0
-
I thought they already were?
Nope, thoughts?0 -
In Oregon, you can register to vote if you can answer yes to the following questions:
→ Are you a resident of Oregon?
→ Are you a US citizen?
→ Are you at least 17 years old?
You can register on line or at the DMV, and one of the things you will have to provide is a valid ID.0 -
I'm curious to know if there's evidence of voter fraud in areas that do not require ID at booths.0
-
I'm curious to know if there's evidence of voter fraud in areas that do not require ID at booths.
Well there r two types of fraud, intentional & unintentional where say a convicted felon gets to vote because they hsve id.0 -
I'm curious to know if there's evidence of voter fraud in areas that do not require ID at booths.
Well there r two types of fraud, intentional & unintentional where say a convicted felon gets to vote because they hsve id.
But does it happen, and to what extent? Here's why I ask. Anytime you put limitations on voting, you're making it harder for people to vote. The underlying assumption that the only thing voter ID laws do is limit the possibility of fraud doesn't seem to be accurate. For the sake of fairness, the State would need to ensure that all citizens have IDs because not all citizens have equal access to IDs for various reasons: cost, transportation, availability. Perhaps voters wouldn't even know they need ID because they don't pay attention to certain outlets, but they recognize their civic right to vote and would still like to participate. Making that right contingent on ID seems silly potentially. If people were willing to commit voter fraud through intentional deception, what's to keep them falsifying ID?
It reminds me of the argument that NRA uses against gun laws. Taking guns away from the citizens doesn't mean the criminals won't still have guns.
So what good do voter laws really do other than make it a potential hassle for honest voters to vote?0 -
If there was widespread evidence of voter fraud, I'd say yeah. Until then, I'm in favor of encouraging people to vote, rather than discouraging.0
-
I disagree, there r really no legitimate reasons for someonw not to have a valid id.0
-
I disagree, there r really no legitimate reasons for someonw not to have a valid id.
Unsurprising.0 -
The state of Pennsylvania has passed a law that we have to show ID at our polling place. We got letters about it a little over a month ago.
I absolutely think they should have to.0 -
I disagree, there r really no legitimate reasons for someonw not to have a valid id.
I agree. I have always had to show an ID when I went to vote. I never questioned it and I think it's a good Idea. You need an ID to buy liquor and cigarettes so why should an ID to vote be any different?0 -
Everyone is required to have an ID for one reason or another. IDs for driving, for the gym, to get a job ( unless they are paying you under the table which makes the job illegal ), crossing the boarder, for attending school, I can go on and on. There is no way I would except the excuse that a person is unable to get themselves to a DMV to attain an ID yet they are able to get to their local voting location. Voting is too important to let someone just walk in and point to a random name with no proof of identity, its not asking very much.0
-
In theory, I'd support IDs for voting. But given the statistics I've found:
• 18 percent of elderly citizens do not have a government-issued photo ID.
• 15 percent of people earning less than $35,000 a year do not have a photo ID.
• 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have a government-issued photo ID with their current name and address.
• 10 percent of voters with disabilities do not have a photo ID.
• 25 percent of voting-age African-American citizens do not have a current, government-issued photo ID.
I would oppose it simply because it disenfranchises far too many people. Now I realize that folks in the above demographics tend to vote Democrat, and the voter ID laws are typically backed by Republicans. It does make sense that Reps would want these laws to pass, to prevent votes that would head in the other direction.
But overall, I think the push here needs to be to get all of age citizens a legal form of ID.0 -
Again I know some ppl dont have an id, but I have yet yo hear a legitimate reason for not having an id0
-
Again I know some ppl dont have an id, but I have yet yo hear a legitimate reason for not having an id
It seems to me that the reasons why are irrelevant. The numbers of people who don't have it, and would be disenfranchised, are just too high.
This article explains the issues well:
Why New Photo ID Laws Mean Some Won't Vote
by COREY DADE
EnlargeMax Whittaker/Getty Images
Stickers at a Nevada polling place on Election Day 2010.
text size A A A January 28, 2012
The argument over whether voters should have to present photo identification at the polls usually splits along party lines. Republicans who favor the requirement say it prevents ballot fraud. Democrats and election rights groups who oppose it say it is meant to suppress turnout.
And people of all political stripes wonder what all the fuss is about.
Most Americans are accustomed to whipping out photo IDs at work, the bank or even their own apartment buildings. And their driver's license — perhaps the most common form of government-issued photo ID — has become just as indispensable.
"I get that all the time: 'What's the big deal? I just got my driver's license renewed, it took like five seconds,' " says Larry Norden, acting director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which opposes these laws. "Frankly, that's why these laws have been so successful, because 89 percent of the population does have photo IDs."
That leaves another 3.2 million Americans who don't possess a government-issued picture ID, according to a recent study co-authored by Norden.
In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-identification law in Indiana, saying that requiring voters to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and affirming that states have a "valid interest" in improving election procedures and deterring fraud.
Four years later, 31 states require voters to show some form of identification at the polls. Fifteen of them require photo IDs. At least five of those states just recently passed tough new photo ID voting laws that could affect voters for the first time in 2012.
The Justice Department is now involved (so far, rejecting a South Carolina law), and the courts are soon to follow due to the growing number of lawsuits challenging these laws.
As the battle intensifies, some basic questions are being raised: How many Americans don't have government-issued picture identification? And how, in this era of post-9/11 security and digital commerce, could anyone function without it?
Who Are They?
By all estimates, those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.
Seniors traditionally have been the most consistent voting group, particularly in absentee balloting. Turnout among minorities has steadily risen over the years and reached a record in 2008 (when the rate of black turnout virtually equaled that of whites for the first time). Also in 2008, turnout of under-24-year-olds reached its highest rate since 1992.
Why Don't They Have Photo IDs?
Many people have multiple forms of identification, including those that display their pictures — like employee badges or credit and debit cards. But states with strict voter ID laws require people to have certain photo IDs issued by governments.
That typically means driver's licenses. But many seniors and many poor people don't drive. In big cities, many minorities rely on public transit. And many young adults, especially those in college, don't yet have licenses.
Voter ID Laws Across The Nation
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
A good number of these people, particularly seniors, function well with the IDs they have long had — such as Medicaid cards, Social Security cards or bank cards. Among the elderly, many of them have banked at the same branch for so long that tellers recognize them without needing to see their IDs. They also may rarely need to cash or deposit checks, relying instead on the direct depositing of Social Security and pension payments.
"The people we're finding are very poor people, people who never drove — and it's surprising how many people are like that," says Larry Dupuis of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, which has filed suit to overturn that state's voter ID law. "They tend to be older people, often women. They also never had a need for a state ID card. There are many things you don't need an ID card for that people think you actually need one for."
Among minorities in poor and rural communities, it's common to bypass banks with their paychecks and rely on cash-checking stores, which will accept most forms of photo ID.
Many states offer non-driver IDs that can be displayed when voting, often provided by motor vehicle agencies.
But that can create a host of problems for some. Rural residents can live great distances from state motor vehicle offices. And some state motor vehicle agencies have chronically long wait times for customers. In Tennessee, which has a new voter ID law, the governor has raised concerns about whether offices are prepared to handle an increased volume of ID seekers.
To Get An ID, You Need An ID
In most states with voter ID laws, citizens must present birth certificates to obtain new photo IDs. Seniors and those born in rural areas, in particular, face a difficult time meeting the requirement because birth certificates weren't regularly generated in the 1930s and earlier. And many of these people were delivered by midwives, who often improperly spelled babies' and parents' names on birth documents.
People are caught in a Catch-22: You need a birth certificate to get this ID, but to get a birth certificate you have to have an ID.
- Elisabeth MacNamara, League of Women Voters.
If a state does have a person's birth certificate, they often must present a photo ID to obtain a copy. That can put an individual back at square one.
"People are caught in a Catch-22: You need a birth certificate to get this ID, but to get a birth certificate you have to have an ID," says Elisabeth MacNamara, who heads the League of Women Voters.
MacNamara also notes that a birth certificate may not be sufficient documentation for women who changed their names after marrying. States require them to present their marriage licenses or divorce decrees.
Here are three longtime voters and their stories in trying to comply with new voter ID laws.
Thelma Mitchell, Nashville, Tenn.
When Thelma Mitchell, a retired state employee, learned that her old employee ID (which was issued by the state and included her photo) wouldn't meet Tennessee's new voter ID law, she went to a motor vehicle office to obtain a valid photo ID. The agency asked her for a birth certificate, but she didn't have one and was denied her request for a new ID.
Mitchell, 93, has never had a birth certificate. She wasn't born in a hospital and was delivered by a midwife, in Alabama in 1918. Birth certificates, particularly for African-Americans in the South, weren't regularly generated at the time. As a result, Mitchell may not be able to vote this year for the first time in decades.
"I got so mad" about being turned away, Mitchell said in an interview. "I was holding my peace to keep from telling him off. So I didn't get to vote."
Another obstacle for Tennessee seniors: The state doesn't put photos on the licenses of drivers over age 65. This practice affects some 30,000 people, according to voting rights advocates in the state.
Florence Hessing, Bayfield, Wis.
At age 96, Florence Hessing is disabled, rarely leaves her home and votes by absentee ballot. She has a driver's license that expired a few years ago. She wrote to the state asking the requirements for obtaining a new photo ID under the state's recently enacted voter ID law. The response she received outlined the requirements and included a $28 fee — which angered Hessing because she expected the ID to be free.
Hessing first had to come up with a birth certificate. She wrote to Iowa, where she was born, but the state had no official record.
"I think that's a shift if I can't vote," Hessing said in an interview. "It'd feel like I was thrown out."
Ruthelle Frank, Brokaw, Wis.
Like Hessing and Mitchell, Frank, 84, was denied in her application for a new voter ID because she lacked a birth certificate. She was born in Wisconsin, has lived in the same home for 83 years and never had need of the document.
"After I was married, we made several trips into Canada. I used my baptismal certificate to cross all the time," Frank said. "That's all I ever needed."
She called her county's registrar of deeds, to no avail. The state's vital records office managed to find her birth certificate, but there were other problems — both her parents' names were misspelled, rendering the document invalid.
"In order to get it corrected, I'd have to amend it. And it would cost $200," Frank said. "I decided I didn't want to spend $200 for the right to vote because I've always thought the right to vote was free. I don't think it's fair."0 -
Gosh making ppl going to a poling place can disenfranchise, so y not vote on the internet? Not trying to b a jerk but this is a ridicukous argument. Get an id, its not hard and I grew up poor n in the hood0
-
Gosh making ppl going to a poling place can disenfranchise, so y not vote on the internet? Not trying to b a jerk but this is a ridicukous argument. Get an id, its not hard and I grew up poor n in the hood
Did you read the above article that summertime_girl posted? It has some very good points about people not being able to get ID's, for reasons other than just being poor. Such as older people just not being able to get one because they don't have birth certificates (Legal citizens who were born prior to 1930) or names were misspelled, or they were re-married and changed their names, ect...
I'd say those are pretty legitimate reasons not to have a photo ID, since you often need a photo ID to get copies of those documents or amend them. As the article stated, if you don't have those documents you can't get a state issued ID, but you can't get a copy of those documents without a state issued photo ID.
Also this part:Tennessee seniors: The state doesn't put photos on the licenses of drivers over age 65. This practice affects some 30,000 people, according to voting rights advocates in the state.
That's a significant number of people.0 -
I firmly believe that voters need id's. We have to have id's to even go to the doctors and get lab work done. i have to have id to pick kids up from schools. This is a different world we live in now, it isn't the simple times that our elderly citizens are used to. I realize that some of the 80 and 90 years old citizens would have a hard time getting id's, but i would be interested in knowing how many of them actually vote. If the benefit outweighs the risk. Maybe there could be an age exception, have the elderly person show proof of residence and then let them vote. I think all citizens should have id after a certain age. (such as 16 - which is what our driver's licenses are) Even if you don't have a driver's license you should have id.0
-
But overall, I think the push here needs to be to get all of age citizens a legal form of ID.
This. There is no reason someone SHOULDN'T have an ID of some sort, even through teen years. God forbid something happen to my child once he's old enough to go out with friends by himself, I want an ID on him. My little sister had one at the age of 12.0 -
YES. 'Nough /endthread0
-
Without some demonstrable reason or evidence of significant voter fraud, it's really just paranoid delusions that seems to be providing a justification for it.0
-
Without some demonstrable reason or evidence of significant voter fraud, it's really just paranoid delusions that seems to be providing a justification for it.
I agree.
That said, if a state were to require a picture id i believe they should provide picture id's to everyone for no cost. Good luck with that.0 -
Without some demonstrable reason or evidence of significant voter fraud, it's really just paranoid delusions that seems to be providing a justification for it.
ur logic is lost it me. Its common sense n the right thing to do.0 -
Without some demonstrable reason or evidence of significant voter fraud, it's really just paranoid delusions that seems to be providing a justification for it.
ur logic is lost it me. Its common sense n the right thing to do.
On the off chance that you're not trolling, if you can't tell me why it's common sense and particularly why it's "the right thing to do" then there's obviously not a reason to do it in the first place. This is especially true when it would clearly make it harder for voters who would otherwise be eligible to actually vote.0 -
There's no reason a person needs to have one. Therefore they should not be required to vote. We all have the right to vote. Obstacles put in place of that make it harder for people to exercise that right.
The argument is not "why shouldn't everyone have an id." The argument is "should id be required to be eligible to vote." The reason given is voter fraud. A near non-existent problem. So why all this effort to solve something that isn't an issue?
Because the goal is to make it harder for those groups without id to be able to vote. Only reason.
If anyone was HONESTLY concerned about potential voter fraud they would raise issue with new automatic polling machines that have been proven to be able to be tampered with. That's where you'd find some REAL voter fraud possibility! Electronically changing votes with a simple program. That's a real problem being ignored while this fake one is trumpeted.0 -
On a related note:
Voting shouldn't require a credit report
By Steve Benen - Wed Jun 27, 2012 12:49 PM EDT
Getty Images
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R)
Once someone is convicted of a felony, they lose their voting rights, even after their sentence is complete. In some states, it's a little easier to reclaim one's voting rights; in other states, not so much.
Take Iowa, for example.
Gov. Terry Branstad (R) has made Iowa "one of the most difficult states in the nation for felons to vote," thanks to a rather ridiculous executive order. While Branstad's predecessor, Democrat Tom Vilsack, created a system whereby felons automatically regained their voting rights once they were discharged from state supervision, Branstad made the process vastly more difficult.
Ex-felons, for example, have to complete a lengthy questionnaire that includes the address of the judge who handled the conviction, pay a filing fee, and submit a full credit report. (If you file a summary of your credit report, the application to restore your rights will be rejected.)
Ed Kilgore's reaction is the right one.
A credit report to regain the right to vote? That's about the most revealing reflection of latter-day Republican values I've seen in a while.... There's not a question in my mind that these people would reinstitute poll taxes if the courts and Grover Norquist would let them.
Ed's post also noted a quote from Iowa's Republican Secretary of State, Matt Schultz, who said he supports Branstad's restrictions, because they "send a message to Iowa's voters that their voting privilege is sacred and will not be compromised."
Perhaps now would be a good time to remind GOP officials that in our system of government, we're not supposed to treat voting rights as a "privilege."
Kevin Drum, meanwhile, summarized the point of all of this: "Felons, of course, tend to be poorer, blacker, and younger than the general population, which means they're more likely to vote for Democrats than the general population. So who cares if they've paid their debt to society? A tendency to vote for Democrats is mighty suspicious behavior all on its own, no?"0 -
In theory, I'd support IDs for voting. But given the statistics I've found:
• 18 percent of elderly citizens do not have a government-issued photo ID.
• 15 percent of people earning less than $35,000 a year do not have a photo ID.
• 18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have a government-issued photo ID with their current name and address.
• 10 percent of voters with disabilities do not have a photo ID.
• 25 percent of voting-age African-American citizens do not have a current, government-issued photo ID.
I would oppose it simply because it disenfranchises far too many people. Now I realize that folks in the above demographics tend to vote Democrat, and the voter ID laws are typically backed by Republicans. It does make sense that Reps would want these laws to pass, to prevent votes that would head in the other direction.
But overall, I think the push here needs to be to get all of age citizens a legal form of ID.
The whole thrust behind these laws is to suppress the vote among groups that traditionally vote Democratic. There is no other explanation. Some of the dumber GOP state legislators (in PA for example) have admitted this publicly. A cursory examination of the laws proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the case.
So you are really talking about two separate issues here. One, is the hypothetical issue of whether or not people should be required to show an ID before voting. It would seem to me that the very first step you would have to take is to determine whether such a law is necessary. I know most of my conservative friends are absolutely against the idea that we should randomly pass intrusive and restrictive laws that enlarge the role of government for absolutely no reason. However, any study that has ever been done on the issue has shown that actual instances of "voter fraud" are extremely low. The last one I read could only come up with 26 documented instances nationwide in the last 5-10 years. Doesn't sound like an crisis issue to me, but then I want EVERYONE to vote--even those who disagree with me--so I guess that makes me unusual.
The second issue is: are these laws intended to address a real issue or are they transparent efforts to suppress Democratic votes? Well, since there is no real issue, as I mentioned earlier, it would seem that, on the very surface, the intent behind these laws is suspicious. And, again as I mentioned earlier, it has been well established that the intent is very clear. If it were a question of ensuring the legal indentity of the voter, then provisions would be made to make it easy for individuals to obtain and ID and efforts would be made to reach out to ensure that as many voters as possible would be eligible to vote. Again, doing the most minimal research shows that this is not the case. In the states where these laws have been passed, seniors who have voted for decades are being denied the right to vote, poor people are being charged the equivalent of a poll tax because they must pay for the "approved" ID, the resources to provide the IDs are purposely made as inconvenient as possible, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
One of the most important rights we have as Americans is the right to vote. ANY official act that attempts to restrict that right in any way should be vigorously opposed by every American, regardless of your political leanings. If your political ideas, party platforms, position stands, etc, do not have enough support to get you elected, then you lose. Deal with it.0 -
Perhaps different in the US, but presumably one has to provide some form of ID when registering to vote...? It doesn't eliminate fraud at the ballot box, but there must already be systems in place for those without picture ID in voter registration.0
-
Perhaps different in the US, but presumably one has to provide some form of ID when registering to vote...? It doesn't eliminate fraud at the ballot box, but there must already be systems in place for those without picture ID in voter registration.
As evidenced by the fact that voter fraud is virtually non-existent.0 -
I know most of my conservative friends are absolutely against the idea that we should randomly pass intrusive and restrictive laws that enlarge the role of government for absolutely no reason.
AZDak as always you make great points. But this is one I wanted to pull out specifically.
You hear republicans talking about getting government out of your lives, less restriction, less big government, right? That's what I hear constantly anyway.
Now they're requiring everyone to have a form of identification to exercise their rights.
How does that fit in with "less government, less regulation?"
It doesn't. It's a painfully obvious attempt to keep groups of people from voting and it's pathetic.0
This discussion has been closed.