Indiana's Voter-identification requirements

[Armelius]

And there was a time, not to long ago before Todd Rokita took office that I could vote in 4 precincts in Indiana. Dead people and people who had moved out of Indiana were still on the voter books. I could walk in and vote in the place of people even though I was not them. The people of Indiana wanted to bring the voting process up to the 21st Century. To make sure their votes would not be diluted by fraudulent votes or multiple votes. Most Hoosiers have no problem presenting a Government Issue ID card, or casting a provisional ballot until the identity of the voter can be determined. No one is disenfranchised or kept from voting. And to be honest, coming up with a Government Issue ID card is not that hard for 99% of Hoosiers in 2008.

Everyone is allowed to vote in Indiana as long as they meet the registration criteria for voter eligibility. The Legislature, the Secretary of State and the State Attorney General, all worked together to make sure that people who wanted to vote, can! Each election and primary period, commercials (PSA) are run in Print, Radio and Television to inform voters that they need to have Government Issue ID. The PSAs also inform them of where they can obtain Government Issue Identification, the operating hours of the BMV and that an ID card from the BMV is free (http://www.in.gov/bmv/3210.htm).

They even extend the BMV hours to align with the polling hours in the State so that people who need to obtain a free government issued ID card can obtain one and vote.

To be honest, even though people have tried (and come up with some lame excuses for repealing the law), I can find no fault with Indiana's system and apparently the SCOTUS could find not fault either.

Had to think about this for a while. My opinion is that having a government issued identity card is similar to the poll tax so they came up with this free card. Smart. But as far as federal elections go there isn't any requirement for an identity card and anyone who is of age should be able to vote for president without jumping through state requirements.

But the local voting is what bothers me most. Shouldn't a person that resides in a state vote for all local offices in the entire state? A person could live or have two or more residences and families for that matter. Shouldn't that person be able to vote in those other locals? I mean if you travel through a place you wouldn't want Boss Hogg running the entire county even though you don't live there. They do have a place reserved for you if you break one of their unbelievable laws or something. Shouldn't you have a say about it through the voting system?

[Cold_Zero]

Had to think about this for a while. My opinion is that having a government issued identity card is similar to the poll tax so they came up with this free card. Smart. But as far as federal elections go there isn't any requirement for an identity card and anyone who is of age should be able to vote for president without jumping through state requirements.

I think you would be shocked to find out that the Federal elections are still left to the States to administrate and a myriad of different election laws. I will say, everyone that meets the requirements to vote is eligible to vote any any election. Just as long as they are properly registered prior to the deadline and in the case of Indiana have a State or Federal issued identification card.

Quote »But the local voting is what bothers me most. Shouldn't a person that resides in a state vote for all local offices in the entire state? A person could live or have two or more residences and families for that matter. Shouldn't that person be able to vote in those other locals? I mean if you travel through a place you wouldn't want Boss Hogg running the entire county even though you don't live there. They do have a place reserved for you if you break one of their unbelievable laws or something. Shouldn't you have a say about it through the voting system?[/quote]I think this is an excellent topic and probably merits a new thread.

[Armelius]

Wouldn't we be better off in some sort of vote at home with some sort of pin number for security like registering for college classes or something? There has to be a better way than just standing in line for a few booths to open up. We are living in the 21st century aren't we?

[Cold_Zero]

Yeah, I thought that in Maryland you are issued a voting card and you walk-in, swipe the card into a machine and then go vote.. Heck, this is Indiana and I am surprised that we have come up with a plan of this caliber.bud

[Armelius]

I can say that all the requirements or going to register and taking time to go to the polls discourages voting. If it was simple, efficient and more streamlined then I think a higher percentage of people would vote. I am all for selling your vote as well. Seems that is what is going on in congress through lobbying efforts. But they are going after the vote that really counts.

[szh]

I am all for selling your vote as well.

Why?

Z

[szh]

I can say that all the requirements or going to register and taking time to go to the polls discourages voting.

1. Simple requirements to show your driving license at the polling station should not count as being too harsh a thing ... to ensure proper identification policies are followed and proper votes are cast, etc.

2. As far as I am concerned, if someone cannot make the simple effort to go to a polling station and vote, then, IMHO, these same people also do not then get to say one negative or positive word about the government that governs them after the elections!

I.e., in my view, voting earns a person the right to praise or criticize politicians, laws, politics, participation in this forum, etc. (regardless of whether their candidate won or lost).

Assuming that a person had the right to vote, then a lack of a vote (for whatever silly reasons: apathy, did not like candidate, didn't wake up in time, etc.) earns me - and the government - the right to ignore that person totally.

Z

[Armelius]

I don't think so. There are more reasons not to vote than to vote. If you are out numbered then even a minuscule showing won't make much difference. Some people might wait until the last minute to decide and then get health problems or in an accident and can't make it to the polls. They should still be able to have a say in government matters. Most of the time all you are doing is voting for a candidate who will decide for you what he/she may vote for or against. It's as if you are already removed from the decision process. Your one voice won't amount to much if you only vote.

[szh]

I don't think so. There are more reasons not to vote than to vote. If you are out numbered then even a minuscule showing won't make much difference. Some people might wait until the last minute to decide and then get health problems or in an accident and can't make it to the polls. They should still be able to have a say in government matters. Most of the time all you are doing is voting for a candidate who will decide for you what he/she may vote for or against. It's as if you are already removed from the decision process. Your one voice won't amount to much if you only vote.

Hmmm ... I think you are misunderstanding my point a bit. If there is a legitimate reason (like a car accident) why someone is not able to exercise their right to vote, then, of course, that does not count! It is the intention that matter.

My point is that if a person chooses not to vote, even if they think their vote does not count or something like that, or the "conclusion is foregone", then they are wrong - often, it is acts like these that lead to artificial outcomes. It is these people who, IMHO, are not allowed to criticize or praise government actions. IMHO, they voluntarily gave up the right to vote, and the right to ***** and moan (or praise) as well.

Remember that I am not saying that a given individual can change an outcome, but the collective whole does - that is what is important! Hell, in the other extreme, we could just allow Senators and Congresspeople to "pick" our President. Or maybe create a unique body of people that does the selections. Is that what you would really want? Not me for sure! People have fought and died for the right to vote and we should not abandon it that easily.

Also IMHO, people who are apathetic about voting "because the outcome is foregone" are sometimes the most surprised when the opposite happens (not rare enough, by the way)! Then, it is too late.

The fact is that we tend to take the freedoms in our country for granted! Among these is the right to vote, and the right to have a say in our government (regardless of whether the outcome is "foregone" or whether we do or do not agree with a given outcome). In many other parts of the world, where voting is not (or no longer) a right, or is not easy to do, people would kill/love/die to have this right!

For us in the USA to so easily discard this right is dangerous! It is not a large step to where people "do the voting for you" and then we will not have a democracy. Now, I realize that I am exaggerating the danger a lot, but ... remember ... all long travel (in any given direction) begins with a single step.

Z

[Armelius]

My problem with our voting system isn't only with registering. It also has to do with a secret ballot. No one knows who voted what. They probably couldn't trace your voting record back to you or wouldn't even try. I think voting should be more open.

For instance in a jury trial the jury goes behind a door and argues about how they are going to vote. Then they vote. You don't know if they vote in secret or not but when they come out or say they can't come to a decision then you know exactly how they voted.

I mean you know how your representatives vote. Why shouldn't your neighbor know how you vote? I might want to go move to an area that is full of conservatives or liberals or libertarians. I don't want to move to a place that votes entirely different than the way I do. Means my vote won't count. Who wants that?

[BusyBadger]

As far as the poor not having ID cards... If the poor have enough intelligence to drag their sorry A$$ down to the welfare office and collect their food stamps and welfare checks, then they have enough intelligence to wait in line at the DMV like the rest of us! Maybe if the poor spent a little less time getting pregnant and collecting rusted out Monte Carlos on their lawn, then they'd have enough time to get proper identification! If the poor can collect our handouts, then they need to follow our rules and get I.D!

If you feel that by factoring out poor people by "Discriminating" against those who don't have identification will put more republicans in office, That's how our system works... If the poor, minority, under privelaged can't figure out how to Get an ID and cast their vote, then their voice doesn't count! I'm sick of being made to feel bad for those who can't figure out the basics of life on their own! Survival of the fittest baby!

If you can't learn how to go to the DMV and get an ID then go vote for your "candidate of change" then you're cause is worthless!

Dave

Well said. I'd hope that some form of identification needs to be presented to pick up the monthly government subsidy cheque anyway, as well as be presented when its cashed. The ID should also be of the same quality & calibre of the one needed to vote, i.e., a student id from East Podunk Community College isn't going to cut it.

I'd say if someone doesn't have an id and/or a permanent mailing address they should have some higher priorities than voting for someone who isn't likely to give a damn about them once in office anyway, except how to garner their vote next time around.