Ok, so I really don't see what the problem is in requiring an ID to vote, IF these guidelines are followed:

1. Driver's license constitutes acceptable ID
2. Alternate ID is available at no charge
3. Any requirement for ID should have an acceptable effective date, allowing enough time for anyone needing it to acquire it without having to go out of their way
4. This is a maybe, but if someone qualifies, based on income or disability status, the County/State whatever, must provide transportation to acquire, either contracted with a private taxi company, or recycling already available work transportation programs

Any thoughts on this? I can see it being considered a poll tax if you charge for it, or if someone has to go through some undue burdensome expense to acquire, but if its free, if its completely free even for poor people based on free transportation, and its not made effective immediately, then whats the problem?

The only other thing I can think of would be having to acquire necessary documents to validate ID, such as birth certificate or social security card, public records does charge for copies of these (a freaking lot lately, I had to pay $25 a pop for my kids BC's for school!) but with todays technology couldn't the ID issuing agency acquire copies for ID purposes at no expense to the citizen? They wouldn't be copies available to the citizen, they'd have to pay for those, but to facilitate the free ID, I would think intra-office copies could be used.

stebo0728 wrote:Ok, so I really don't see what the problem is in requiring an ID to vote, IF these guidelines are followed:

1. Driver's license constitutes acceptable ID
2. Alternate ID is available at no charge
3. Any requirement for ID should have an acceptable effective date, allowing enough time for anyone needing it to acquire it without having to go out of their way
4. This is a maybe, but if someone qualifies, based on income or disability status, the County/State whatever, must provide transportation to acquire, either contracted with a private taxi company, or recycling already available work transportation programs

Any thoughts on this? I can see it being considered a poll tax if you charge for it, or if someone has to go through some undue burdensome expense to acquire, but if its free, if its completely free even for poor people based on free transportation, and its not made effective immediately, then whats the problem?

The only other thing I can think of would be having to acquire necessary documents to validate ID, such as birth certificate or social security card, public records does charge for copies of these (a freaking lot lately, I had to pay $25 a pop for my kids BC's for school!) but with todays technology couldn't the ID issuing agency acquire copies for ID purposes at no expense to the citizen? They wouldn't be copies available to the citizen, they'd have to pay for those, but to facilitate the free ID, I would think intra-office copies could be used.

I think the photo id requirement is unnecessary. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I don't believe there have been enough cases of voter id fraud to warrant such a requirement. the overwhelming majority of NICOnauts have photo drivers licenses, so it's a non-issue for us.

But there is hint of political motivation with the photo id requirement as curiously, it seems to impact a significant percentage of one particular voting block. Low income, urban folks that don't drive. I don't believe a birth certificate or traditional voter id card is aceeptable under the new rule. So the rule seems to make it more cumbersome for certain people to vote, than preventing a crime.

I agree. I think it's unnecessary, and won't serve to stop any of the actual fraud that goes on year by year. Voter impersonation isn't a problem. That said, with the conditions attached that Stebo gives (especially the bits about the supporting documentation), I could probably sign onto it, if only to get it off the front page and get the rest of us onto things that matter, even a slight bit.

I think the problems with voting rights in the United States aren't going to present themselves in the form of voter ID laws, especially if they're as considerately drafted as Stebo offers. No, they're going to present themselves in Texas' redistricting (which, for the fourth time in a row, has been found by a Court to have violated the Voting Rights Act because it unlawfully disenfranchises non-white voters) or in Ohio's early voting laws (which took away all early voting until a referendum threatened to restore it, and then gave it back to everybody, except for the weekend prior to the election, when only military personnel can vote early in person).

It may or may not be necessary, I just wanted to see what the big deal was IF we had such regulations, when formulated properly. To be honest, Im more "conspiracy geared" toward being skeptical of electronic voting, and the tampering that its could be vulnerable to.

If we ever get to a point in which we morph our border policy into an open border policy, I think such ID's would be more vital. I wouldn't have a problem in the world with an open border policy if we had a consumption tax as our primary tax, because regardless of a persons status as citizen, their consumption taxes paid would support their use of our societal offerings. Couple that with the presence of a prebate for necessity taxation, which only registered citizens would recieve, and it would be a revenue positive scenario.

But then, honestly my position is that voting needs to be more limited, especially federal elections. Since there is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections, the ability for further limitation is there. Personally, I feel that only an individual with a net positive tax paid in a given year should have voting rights, with an exception being given to military personnel.

stebo0728 wrote:But then, honestly my position is that voting needs to be more limited, especially federal elections. Since there is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections, the ability for further limitation is there. Personally, I feel that only an individual with a net positive tax paid in a given year should have voting rights, with an exception being given to military personnel.

So a stay at home mom can't vote because she pays no taxes?

I can see requiring SOME sort of id to vote, in addition to registering beforehand, but not a mandatory photo id, which is what is being pushed. I believe in Ohio and Florida, I remember reading about some reports of "Zombie" voting over the years. That is, people who died, but still show up as registered. Then other people show up and vote under the dead person's name.

Bubba1 wrote: So a stay at home mom can't vote because she pays no taxes?

Sorry, I forgot to specify that spouses of tax payers would also be allowed to vote.

How do you live without an ID? Get one or don't vote.

stebo0728 wrote:

Bubba1 wrote: So a stay at home mom can't vote because she pays no taxes?

Sorry, I forgot to specify that spouses of tax payers would also be allowed to vote.

What about a stay at home dad in a two-father household?

WDRacing wrote:How do you live without an ID? Get one or don't vote.

Pay cash?

So after Citizens United, do corporations need a voter ID?

AppleBonker wrote: What about a stay at home dad in a two-father household?

LOL - actually a good question, I suppose if they can't marry it might be hard to allow them to vote?

bigbadberry3 wrote:So after Citizens United, do corporations need a voter ID?

You need ID to do so many things and voting is arguably one of the most important. I am ok with ID requirements as long as they are not set up in such a restrictive manner they can be construed as something akin to modern poll tax.

I would be more worried about physical ballots going missing or popping up and electronic machines with no audit trail.

WDRacing wrote:How do you live without an ID? Get one or don't vote.

It's not that these people don't have any id's, it's that they don't have STATE ISSUED PICTURE Id's, which is what is being proposed. It's too restrictive. You have a drivers license, a car, and the money to drive it around, bub, problem solved. Many poor people in cities don't. 3 questions for you:

1. Is voter fraud at polling stations a big problem?
2.. Whats wrong with the present standards for id verification at polling stations?
3. Why create a new law that fixes nothing but burdens low income people without drivers licenses?

Bubba1 wrote:

WDRacing wrote:How do you live without an ID? Get one or don't vote.

It's not that these people don't have any id's, it's that they don't have STATE ISSUED PICTURE Id's, which is what is being proposed. It's too restrictive. You have a drivers license, a car, and the money to drive it around, bub, problem solved. Many poor people in cities don't. 3 questions for you:

1. Is voter fraud at polling stations a big problem?
2.. Whats wrong with the present standards for id verification at polling stations?
3. Why create a new law that fixes nothing but burdens low income people without drivers licenses?

1, I can't say that there isn't more voter fraud then is mentioned. How can you? Without ID verification it could be far more rampant then we figure it is. An ID solves that.
2 and 3 are answered with 1.

It's 2012, it's not hard to come up with a way to get these "poor" people an id. The same person that drives them to a poll to vote can drive them to a DMV or Post Office no? Not that that's THE solution to getting these poor people an ID, it's just my level of GAF about whether or not they vote. If the parties can bus people around to the polls then I'm sure they can bus them to an establishment to get a damn ID. It's not like it's something they have to do monthly for crying out loud "bub", ur so old man..lol. Get the ID once and it can be good for *insert a long friggin time period to be determined by smaht people here*

I have a full size Chevy Express, I'll gladly drive 7 Conservatives at a time in my local area to a DMV or where ever. If you have the passion to get out and vote, you'll find a way to do so.

If you're passionate enough to want to cast your vote, you'll find a manner in which to do so. If you have no ID, you can't vote.

From what I've read, the majority of the cases of voter fraud in this country would not be solved by forcing people without drivers licenses to get state issued photo id's.

The types of voter frauds being reported seem more associated with ignorance than anything else. they include:

felons trying to vote not realizing they are not allowed
immigrants not fluent in english, screwing up registration
people registering to vote more than once (not voting, registering a second time not realizing they were already registered)
trying to vote twice (same name).
vote buying schemes (isolated local sheriff/judge elections, where people are paid to vote a certain way)


It appears the # of cases of people pretending to be other people at a voting booth appears insignificant. Virtually no arrests. So I ask again, what problem specifically is this new rule supposed to fix?

Isn't "striving to get the government off one's back" a conservative mantra? It might not impact driving registered voters like you or me, but I don't understand how you can argue it doesn't create additional bureaucracy for a segment of non-driving voters that don't need state issued photo id's.

You got me there, I suppose we don't need anymore Gov bs. Since I have an ID, it doesn't effect me personally and to be honest, I don't like who the poor people usually vote for.

To me, the solution is simple, as soon as a citizen wants to register to vote, in the subscription form he will have the option to ask for an ID. He will have the choice to use his Driver License, his passport, his ID provided by the MVA, or a similar one -solely for voting purposes- provided by his jurisdiction after his registration is approved. The same form can be use for the ones who "lost" or don't have any ID with picture.

But surely, no one without an ID with picture, should be accepted to vote.

Voting in elections is not a child's game but requires of responsibility, and if you forgot your ID, or if you lost it, then you won't be acceptable to vote. No excuses, no drama like ...a poor nun in Nevada was impeded to vote because she forgot her ID, what an injustice...come on, give me a break...

If a person wants to vote, then this person must PREPARE for it, and must bring the required ID. Period.

Never thought I'd agree with Carlos, but that pretty much sums it up.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing TMS. Carlos has provided a, though grammatically troubling, fairly straight forward argument

I understand the sentiment "there's hardly any real fraud, so why do we need this" because both sides claim fraud when they lose, and deny fraud when they win, and in either case the evidence is circumstantial at best, but I think if anything, a voter ID requirement would shut the dissent down after an election, and would create a system that was "above reproach"

stebo0728 wrote: I understand the sentiment "there's hardly any real fraud, so why do we need this" because both sides claim fraud when they lose, and deny fraud when they win, and in either case the evidence is circumstantial at best, but I think if anything, a voter ID requirement would shut the dissent down after an election, and would create a system that was "above reproach"

The issue that seems to be overlooked is that the types of voter frauds being reported would not get fixed by a state issued photo id requirement. It's a waste of money. Call me crazy, but I thouht we want our government not to waste money.

An update. In Pennsylania, a judge just postponed Pennsylvania's controversial state issued photo id requirement until next year, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year's presidential election. The law has not been overturned.

But people at the poll centers can still ask for ID. Which, imo, is stupid because all it does is confuse the situation. There needs to be clear and concise rules and guidelines.

Good question here -

How can it be unconstitutional to place any kind of restriction upon an act that has no constitutional right? In other words, there is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections. How then could a restriction based on ID be unconstitutional?

Still, I agree with the decision to postpone the requirement until such time as its sorted out. People have to be given sufficient time to acquire such an ID. And as we all know, for some folks, sufficient time can drag on quite long.

WDRacing wrote:But people at the poll centers can still ask for ID. Which, imo, is stupid because all it does is confuse the situation. There needs to be clear and concise rules and guidelines.

Sure they can and they do. You're supposed to have some sort of id when voting in order to prove you are who you are. Your signature is also on file when you sign in and they are compared. And that's why there are so few reported cases of voter fraud now where someone votes as someone else. The problem here is the law goes to an extreme, by not only requiring a photo id, but only a state issued one.