Voter ID Law....safeguard or supression?
 

The Supreme Court is hearing a case on the Indiana Voter ID law today. Under the law, registered voters in Indiana who dont present a valid driver's license or passport would not have their ballots counted.

The Court does not appear to be sympathetic to the concerns expressed by those opposed to the law who believe that it infringes on Constitutional rights.

I share that concern and think its reasonable to assume that this will disproportionately affect the poor, seniors and minorities...all of whom tend to vote more Democratic than Republican.

Will it provide for less voter fraud or suppress a segment of the voting population? You decide.

Posessing a valid, current form of identification, indicating that you are a US citizen is what most people choose to do. I have a good friend who is disabled and cannot drive. She has never been out of the country, so she has never gone to the effort to get her passport. She has a state-issued ID that looks exactly like a driver's license. Anyone of voting age can get one of these for a small fee. There are no restrictions. I do not understand why it would be discrimination or unconstitutional for one to prove who they are.

I am really confused as to why this is such an issue....whats the big deal about having a picture ID? Heck when I use my debit card in some places I still get asked for ID (which is stupid cause my pictures is ON it...but most of the time their thumb is covering it up lol)

Someone explain to me why having this is a bad thing? Everything I have heard says the "poor" can get ID cards for free...so ho does this affect poor people, minorities an seniors negatively

Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote, nuff said.

Everyone else has an ID of some kind.

Shani...there is a fee required to get a state photo ID in most states and a limited number of places to get such an ID, often nowhere near minority communities.

If one must pay a small fee to get a photo ID in order to vote, how is that not similar in some respect to a small poll tax?

Why does it have to be a photo ID? There should absolutely be an ID requirement to vote, but there is no evidence that current requirements in nearly every other state (social security card along with such documents as a bank statement, utility bill, Social Security paystub or other forms of ids that contain an address) have resulted in voter fraud or voting by dead people.

I guess Im basing this on where I live...they are free and at any DMV

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/dldata...49371755&ty=dl

complex issue.

I think Id's should absolutely be required and because of this, they should also be issued free of charge.

Quite frankly, this is looking at the wrong side of things if they really want to prevent voting problems. Voters are fine. It's the vote counting that has the problems. We need Dibold replaced by a public system that has fail-safes and is double blind.

whatever, i tend to lean towards democratic tendacies and i think you should have an ID.

I have my ss card, ID, birth cert, etc... no reason why any legal resident shouldn't.

So the problem is a picture?

The problem is paying for a picture, as small as the fee may be, or access to obtaining such an ID... when other IDs are acceptable in nearly all other states without having to leave home to obtain one.

Unless these id's are provided free and are easy to get (ie within walking distance) and the wait times on these is not significant (ie in line for over an hour) there isn't' a problem. The problem is that most of the id's cost money, require you to drive 10 miles to the dmv, and require you to wait for 3 hours in line.

The poor that work hourly may not be able to take off a half day of work to get one of these, they also may not be able to get transportation to the place to get it, or afford it when they get there.

I think the people requiring these id's should have the burden of proving that lack of them is causing significant fraud.

One has to wonder how these people who can't find a way to get an ID have time to go vote.

I know the polls by my house almost REQUIRE you drive to them. One is on a busy street in a church that has really nothing around it or bus service, the other is in a school that would be walkable only to people who lived in that area.

So you can't seem to be able to afford an ID (and sure make them free) with your picture on it, or get out of the house to get one, but you can show up to the poles on election day?

I'm sure thats the next step on the agenda :)

quote for truth

sometimes its really scary when you post exactly (well pretty much) what I was going to say)..though I think its more of a "oh god I agree with him on something" scary...

Absolutely agree that there should be a photo ID required. Granted I hail from Chicago but there were plenty of places to get a state ID. Over here, everyone gets a ID card with their picture. It would be just another safe guard against voter fraud. And a poll tax... how often does the State ID need to be replaced?

Also agree with Will, the system itself needs an overhaul. I worked a simple county election and that was fucking ridiculous. All these old "veteran" election workers telling me what I was doing wrong when I had the god-damned guide lines in my pocket!

From Indiana:
From Georgia:

Im sure my ignorance is going to show here..but I'm going to ask anyway.....If these people that are so adamant to vote...cant/wont get a id card to show at the polls....cant they just say they are going to be out of town and vote by absentee ballot?

Ok I kinda answered my own question....these are the rules for TN, and it seems the "old and infirm" can vote by absentee with no issues

To vote by mail, a registered voter must fall under one of the following categories:

1. The voter will be outside the county of registration during the early voting period and all day on election day;
2. The voter or the voter’s spouse is enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited college oruniversity outside the county of registration;
3. The voter’s licensed physician has filed a statement with the county election commission stating that, in the physician's judgment, the voter is medically unable to vote in person. The statement must be filed not less than five (5) days before the election and signed under the penalty of perjury;
4. The voter resides in a licensed facility providing relatively permanent domiciliary care, other than a penal institution, outside the voter's county of residence;
5. The voter will be unable to vote in person due to service as a juror for a federal or state court;
6. The voter is sixty-five (65) years of age or older;
7. The voter has a physical disability and an inaccessible polling place;
8. The voter is hospitalized, ill, or physically disabled and because of such condition, cannot vote in person;
9. The voter is a caretaker of a person who is hospitalized, ill, or disabled;
10. The voter is a candidate for office in the election;
11. The voter serves as an election day official or as a member or employee of the election commission;
12. The voter’s observance of a religious holiday prevents him or her from voting in person during the early voting period and on election day;
13. The voter possesses a valid commercial driver license and certifies that he or she will be working outside the state or county of registration during the early voting period and all day on election day;
14. The voter is a member of the military or is an overseas citizen

Shani.....I think the registered voters in question (without state-issued photo ID) can vote absentee in IN and GA....so it debunks the myth that such laws are to prevent voter fraud.

But why should they be forced into absentee voting rather than voting in person. Many, particularly those not politically active except once every 4 years, may even be unaware of the absentee option.

IMO, it represents a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution....they have to pay (fee and/or lost wages in obtaining photo ID) or lose their choice in how they vote.

how about this for a solution.
pass a law that requires supermarkets and malls to provide a small area for the state to set up an ID counter. i can almost guarantee you that every state has a small warehouse full of old printers and computers not being used. how much does a cheap digital camera cost these days? the only major expense for the state would be OT for employees to man the booths. free ID's in places everyone can get to for relatively short money for the state.

Won't work, if you want the ID's to mean anything at all they must be printed on specific equipment to prevent forgeries.

Also to the comments that people who can't drive to the DMV can't drive to the polls or who can't miss work is silly because they can still absentee.

aside from the fact that anything can be forged, just how specific should the equiptment be?
here in MA, when you get a new license they just graft a picture onto a simple form till you get the laminated version in the mail. i doubt it would be that difficult to produce laminated picture IDs with watermarked backgrounds using current or slightly older computer/printer combos.

Fucking ID wrecks my buzz. I currently do not posess a drivers licence or a passport and you would not believe the fucking hassle I have trying to apply for jobs and stuff. What cracks me up to apply for ID like a drivers licence or a passport you need ID. I personally think it is a pile of bollocks, more beaurocracy to make it difficult for people to get on with their lives. I have to pay over £80 for a passport and £45 for a drivers licence (times that by 2 for dollars). I'm currently unemployed and my benefits work out at £45 a week. It is fucking stupid.

I believe all identification should be free. It is unfair that goverment requirement should cost an individual his/her chance to vote, obtain employment or leave or enter their country. Both the US and UK can afford to spend a massive amount of their budget 'liberating' other countries, however they charge their own citizens for ID, essential in participating within a 'liberal society'.

It probably would help voter fraud, if you had to present photographic ID but if that is the case the identification shouldn't cost the individual.

I have absolutely no problem with an ID requirement to vote. Most people carry some form of ID on them anyway. For those who do not, I have no problem with the state providing a no cost voter specific ID.

I've only been registered in CA, NJ, NY. Doesn't every state give back a voter registration card? I'm not even sure about NY actually now that I think about it since I don't really look at the political mail. I can't imagine how anyone gets anything done in this day and age especially now that it is a post 9/11 world without some form of ID.

If not, I don't see even charging a fee for processing the ID as problematic in any form either. People have to pay judiary fees ON TOP of parking fines, and judgements. I see no reason to increase the tax base just to insure that people have free IDs.

Interesting that if any state tried to tack on a $50 to $100 "fee" that had to be paid at the polling place to get a ballot to vote, I think, rightfully, most of us would be incensed and see it as an unacceptable abridgement of our right to vote. But simply require $50 to $100 (or more) in fees for the ID documents required to vote and that seems perfectly acceptable to most folks?

I'm miffed. I agree with belezabaub: No fees should be required for any licenses, documents, or other government-required paperwork. So-called 'user fees' are a major form of taxation, but it is dis-honest taxation and thus most likely to be used irresponsibly.

That woman who’s challenging Indiana’s voter ID law? Registered to vote in two states
 

Your delicious irony of the day comes from Florida and Indiana. The litigant who is trying to kill off Indiana’s voter ID law is a walking, talking case of potential voter fraud. She certainly appears to have broken the law by registering to vote in both Indiana and Florida, and by claiming homestead tax exemption in both states. But let’s re-write the law so she doesn’t have to provide proper ID before voting!

Read the article here:
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008...5420740819.prt

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the issue in question.

It is not opposition to the necessity for a valid ID in order to vote. That is not being questioned.

The question I raised in the OP was if a specific requirement for a STATE-ISSUED PHOTO ID disproportionately impacts particular segments of registered or eligible voters (seniors, minorities) and/or if the rationale for the law (to prevent fraud) is legitimate when the state can produce no evidence of fraud under the old (pre-photo) voter id requirements.

In Indiana, there is a larger percentage of seniors -as opposed to all voting age citizens -who do not possess a STATE-ISSUED PHOTO ID and are now barred from casting a regular ballot until they obtain such an ID. Apparently some 30,000-40,000 seniors who have been voting for years are affected.

Is this an undue burden on a particular class of citizens? To not be an undue burden, the STATE-ISSUED PHOTO IDs should be both free and easily accessible...and they are not.

I wont raise the question of the political motivation of the legislatures in question...intent is much more difficult to prove.

I've moved this series of exchanges, posted over at the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130016&page=2">Comeback Clintons</a> thread, because the exchanges between Ustwo and dc_dux SHOWCASES the different perspectives we at TFP, (_and I'm assuming, across the country), have regarding the background of the origins of the controversy discussed in this thread...are we experiencing in the US, a republican driven voter supression "Op", or a sincere response to the problem of Vote Fraud?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...96#post2377396

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...07#post2377507

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...69#post2377569
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...90#post2377590

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...11#post2377611
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...12#post2377612
<h2>The exchanges between Ustwo and dc_dux, from the other thread end here, and my post, a reaction to their exchanges, begins:</h2>

<h3>....and here is an article describing the sentencing of the accused tire slashers and the role that "Rick Wiley, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin", played in the sentencing of the tire slashers:</h3>
But....should not, as far as accountability and punishment, ONE SIZE FIT ALL, when it comes to impeding and suppressing the vote, especially when it stems from a highly organized conspiracy, engineered at very high levels of government, professional association, and partisan political organizations, instead of from the random decision by a few misguided partisans, to engage in slashing of tires of a fleet of voter transport vans, in one location, on one election day?

Let's begin with a look at "Rick Wiley, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin".... but, before we do that, let's pinpoint the origin of the vote suppression sentiment as republican party policy:

1980, the co-founder of the conservative republican Council for National Policy declared:
<h3>The question for the thread is; how does the following, well documented ALL OUT effort by highly connected republican politcal officials to hype an issue - VOTE FRAUD, which apparantly is rare to the point that it almost never occurs, compares to the arrest of a handful of partisan "tire slashers", working to render a small fleet of republican party voter transfer vans, inoperable on one election day, in one location?</h3>

Is it more reasonable to dismiss the tire slashing for what it has been reported to be....an uncoordinated incident of partisan motivated vandalism of little consequence, except for the way it was used as part of a massive hyped, campaign of disinformation intended to deflect from the well planned, long standing conspiracy to actually suppress the vote, nationally, election after election, by the opposing major political party....or to focus on the "tire slashing" as the smoking gun, highlight of the REAL problem?
I offer an apology for taking until the last lines (right above this sentence) to connect all of the above to the subject of this thread....but....it turns out that it is that involved, and here we are !

Host, do I really need to copy/paste random dribble from a Conservative blog which has nothing to do with each other in order to seem like I know what I'm talking about?

You need an ID to drive.
You need an ID to drink.
You need an ID to go to school.
You need an ID to work.
You need an ID to deposit/withdraw money from a bank.
You need an ID to use a credit card
You need an ID to rent an apartment.
You need an ID to buy cigarettes.
You need an ID to buy electricity/water/gas/cable/internet utilities.
You need an ID to <et al>.

Seriously, this is only preventing illegals and convicts from voting.

I read the transcript of the oral argument at the Supreme Court.

There is not a shadow of a chance in hell that they will toss this Indiana law on the current record. It'll probably be 6-3 or 7-2. Even Breyer was skeptical of the challenge.

What the fuck kind of a country do you boys want me to have to live in? Here is a "commission" on election "reform" that conducted hearings where the public was not permitted to testify, yet it sported an advisory board with a member who has been exposed as a criminal, republican sponsored vote REFORM, saboteur, Mark "Thor" Hearne:

<h3>What are you advocating here, seaver and loquitur, what is the problem you both seem in favor of "fixing"?</h3>
loquitur, you're a member of the bar. Why am I getting the impression that you are unconcerned about a massive, long standing partisan operation of one major political party to suppress the vote, that encompasses members of the Federalist Society, republican national lawyers association, high ranking elected and party officials and political appointees, has resulted in the compromising of the DOJ's commitment and ability to enforce voting and civil rights, and to investigate and to prosecute crimes in a non-partisan, fair, and timely manner.

And to recognize that the wrongdoing reaches into the offices of the POTUS and the VP:
One giant, criminal cabal, ethics, oaths to the constitution, all compromised in the quest for total political domination, at any cost, injustice, or consequence. I once would not have thought it was even possible for so many to be so united, and yet so compromised....empty, corrupt vessels on a fool's mission resulting in the destruction of the republic.

Please Host, what burden.

I hear all of this that it's a poll tax, it's hard on blacks, that it's whitey trying to stop them from voting.

They apparently have no utilities.
They apparently have no car.
They apparently have no job.
They apparently have no housing.
They apparently have no school they attend.
They apparently have no ..... et al.

Do I need to post it all? They have ID's. So PLEASE, give a decent reason why these states can not decide to make it mandatory to show upon polling.

With all of your dibold paranoia you spread about, I assumed you'd want even this absolute BASIC poll security matter to be in effect. Yet on this issue you are absent.

Seaver, are you curious, at all, as to why republicans have been pushing this voter I.D. requirment, so vigorously? Can you provide any untainted support for this new hurdle in the way of casting a ballot? Look at the effort and expense to push this restiriction though the courts. I read that, aside from the now exposed outrageous republican driven misinformation campaign attempting to describe a problem that does not exist, there is no justification for the effort and money expended.

If it is not part of the same partisan operation as the late 90's discredited "Florida felon voter purge", what justifies it? Was it important enough to wreck the DOJ and to destroy it's credibility? I'm pushing back Seaver, and your embracing this with open arms.... It seems to be our reflexive natures. You have an ability to downplay, dismiss, or ignore, the information I find significant enough to post.

Yeah, loquitur, they're "gettin" it done, aren't they? I weep for the prospects of the least of us, under the thumb of the criminality of these fucking thugs!

And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids!

I guess I come at this from the opposite tack: I have no problem with identification of voters, but I do have a problem with fees for necessary government license, ID, or other documents that are arbitrary and inflexible, whether they are used for voting or not.

If a government is going to require a license or other paperwork as a condition for participating in the society in any manner (voting, driving, shooting, whatever) then that paperwork should be provided without fee. Your 'fee' is already paid in your taxes.

I see no good reason why the government should charge a citizen to obtain a document that the government requires that they obtain. I would like to know if anyone has any.

What is the difference between a fee and a tax when its the government doing both?

Listen, Host, the arguments at the Supreme Court went something like this (and if you don't follow the legal arguments, ask and I'll explain how the concepts work). Bear in mind, this is a LEGAL issue, not an issue of whether an ID requirement is good public policy:

1. a state legislature is entitled to deal with what it perceives to be a problem
2. state statutes are usually evaluated in terms of whether they are rationally related to a legitimate purpose
3. the plaintiffs here brought a facial challenge to the statute rather than an "as applied" challenge, which means they have to show that the statute necessarily burdens the exercise of a basic right. (In an "as applied" challenge, they'd have someone who was denied the right to vote on grounds of lack of ID.)
4. the facts in the record about the extent of the burden don't appear to show substantial burdens on substantial numbers.

The issue is not whether requiring IDs are a good idea - it's whether requiring photo ID is permissible under the constitution.

I will stipulate for purposes of this argument that the law was passed for the purpose of helping Republicans. But that doesn't invalidate the legislation any more than pro-union legislation should be invalidated because it helps Democrats. Political parties want to win elections for a reason, and among the reasons is that they get to reward their friends, punish their enemies, and try to perpetuate themselves in power. Welcome to the real world. The constitution contemplates political games, and it expects that if people aren't happy with the things their representatives do, that they will toss the bums out in the next election -- pretty much as they did in November 2006.

Both. Less votes would definitely be counted.

I think the ID is very necessary. There is so much identity fraud and it grows exponentially each year. The shame is that there are many seniors, especially those born in the south and in other countries, that have difficulty acquiring birth certificates when none were kept. I always wonder how they got buy for 70 - 90 years without an ID or passport.

I see this on a daily basis as my "clients" are required to have state-issued photo IDs in order to qualify for specific programs. I've seen lots of other makeshift IDs that I will not accept because they don't offer the same safeguards as the state IDs (especially the post 9/11/01 versions).

There is another aspect to the public policy question that isn't being addressed here much. Voter fraud, or the perception of voter fraud, is corrosive. It's not merely that the elections have to be clean - the process must be seen as being clean. People have to have confidence in it. The FL vote in 2000 did enormous damage to democracy because it caused people to lose confidence in the system - justifiably, because the system was a mess, and sometimes you need a crisis before problems get addressed.

But each person who votes has a right to expect that the process is clean, that only qualified voters vote, that each vote gets counted only once. If that is not true, it injures every single voter.

That means the case weighs two kinds of harm against each other: (1) the risk that some voter somewhere who is otherwise qualified might be turned away from the polls for lack of ID; and (2) the systemic harm to every voter from having a system without adequate and obvious safeguards. Usually, in a democracy we rely on our elected representatives to make this balance.

As a matter of constitutional law, I would expect that is what will decide the case. Note that that has nothing to do with whether I personally believe item 1 or item 2 is more important. The issue is whether the legislature of a state is entitled to make that choice.

You want to vote, you have an ID. That plain and simple. I don't see a reason why this is even a problem.

State IDs are dirt cheap and you can even use fake addresses on them.

I deal with a great many homeless people and even they have ID's.

All having an ID will do is help to prevent voter fraud (you know dead people voting, illegals voting, etc.), I'm a Democrat but if my party is scared of this law then something is seriously wrong.

And for anyone to bring race into it "it's discriminatory against blacks".... how the fuck do you figure? What states don't issue state ID's to everyone with $15 (in Ohio I'm sure a little more in some states less in others) and an address... and I believe the state ID expires like 20 yrs after the issue date and you could still use it. I'm sure at the polls they are not going to check nor have the time to check the expiration dates that closely.

I need to show my ID to cash a check... no matter where I cash it, a bank, a store, a check cashing place, etc.

If you drive, you need a driver's license, so that takes care of that population. If you have a library card, at least everywhere I have ever lived, you need a photo ID with proper address (unless you are a minor then your parents have to sign). To buy spray paint, anything with pseudoephedrine (Sudafed), etc. you need an ID (and if you say you can buy pseudoephedrine cough medicines, you are lying or the place you buy it is selling it illegally..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoephedrine

In Ohio the law requires that if you look under 40 you are supposed to be ID'd for tobacco and alcohol.... many places don't but the law is there.

I need an ID when I go to pick up a registered letter, when I use my credit cards.... etc.

There is no reason in the world why a legal resident should not have an ID.

It's a major way to stop voter fraud and if one party is using excuses why it is wrong to need one to vote, when you need an ID for just about any other service, it makes me wonder what that party is truly afraid of.

But.... why not let the populace vote on it, put it on ballots and let the people decide.

jewels443, pan6467:

....the reaction HERE, to the unprecedented criminality of the Bush administration is to "SIDE" with it accomplishing one of it's core objectives, where ever possible?
loquitur, a more eloquent opinion, than the one above, has not, to my knowledge, been posted on any thread at TFP politics.

Consider that "the mess" in Florida in the 2000 election would not have deteriorated to the level that it did, if not for the republican party practice of voter "caging", supposedly ceased in 1986 after a republican party consent decree (see below), and the "Felon Voter Purge List", promulgated by Jeb Bush and his Sect'ty of State, Katherine Harris:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...2&postcount=22
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=36
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...68&postcount=3

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...25&postcount=1
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...7&postcount=24
jewel, the problem related to new voter I.D. requirements, is the mirror opposite of what you are describing, hence, my opposition to it. If you have any independent reporting of people attempting to vote using phony ID's or of people misrepresenting who there are in attempt to vote illegitimately, please post them, because, this is what I am reading:

pan, both jewels443, have already posted "it's discriminatory against blacks".... how the fuck do you figure?" answers as to how it is discriminatory to add new ID requirements to restrict voting. I've reposted jewels443's description, in this post.

A driver's license is a privilege, voting is a right. There were, into the mid 1960's poll taxes and literacy tests as law in some states to intentionally block some from voting, and many are the same people who would face a new hardship in the way of their voting because of new ID requirments.

Show me independent reporting on this "voter fraud" which concerns you enough to add restrictions to some people's access to the polls. Now, you've only convinced me that you've allowed yourself to be influenced by the illegal republican vote suppression opertation, exactly in the manner that they've intended for you to be.

Am I too partisan? I've done my "homework", and I've shared it with you on this thread, if you'd only read it and mull it over. Your reaction is curious, you seem angry for the exact opposite reasons for which it would be reasonable, given the documentation.

A series of crimes have been committed, good people have been "roughed up", experienced their rights being trampled on by lawyers, partisan party, and elected officials, and your response, set a new hurdle to impede them from voting. Haven't I documented that republicans have certainly done enough of that kind of thing, already, pan? Hasn't jewels443 already supported ny contention that, for some, new ID requirments would be an added hardship?

Ok let's try this... very simple question....

When you register to vote how about they take your picture and put it on a free voter registration card that you take in when you vote?

Or is that discriminatory also?

pan, I just revised the beginning of my last post....can you see where I am coming from, can you see that you are advocating what the criminals are trying to put in place, to remedy a problem that does not exist?

In addition, consider that the new ID requirement is not applicable when submitting an absentee ballot. Who do you think is more likely to submit an absentee ballot, a democrat, or a republican? Why do you think the Bush admin. has made up this "problem", and then, fired US attorneys who did not prosecute enough cases of "vote fraud"?

Please, do not be distracted by what they are trying to distract you with. It is not about a new voter ID requirement, because there is no problem to solve there. It is about an official policy of vote suppression. Push against it, do not take the bait, as you are doing now.

I simply stated that I believe photo ID should be required in order to vote. My opinion is merely that based on what I've seen and how prevalent identification theft has become. I don't have any reports or links although if I'm sure I could find some stats that might or might not work. I can only guess that the links you've posted refer to the people that can't vote because they have no ID. The stats can't possibly reflect the number of lost, stolen and phony IDs that are out there and readily available.

WTF? My cries of discrimination must be firewalled here.

I can appreciate the time you spend researching but there are certain things that you'll never find in print, such as the lost and stolen IDs I mention above. The things I see are never reported in the media, the stats I can offer are not recorded. Show me that everything you read is truly accurate and I'll personally drive a senior from where I live to his itty bitty hometown to get what's called a "Statement in Lieu of Certificate" so he can get a State ID.

Ummm yes.

So...basically, if the Bush administration issues a statement in support of recent studies that indicate that the sky is blue...you're going to do everything within your power to refute it?

None--in my eyes at least. When I say our burden is already shouldered through taxes, I do mean the more traditional forms. Yes, license 'fees' are taxes, just very unjust, dishonest, and regressive ones that should be halted.

So Host, you're trying REALLY hard to avoid the topic here. Why is a picture attached to an ID so bad? If it is the Republicans who are truly so bad at stealing elections, shouldn't you support a measure like this? Shouldn't you be trying to stop these election frauds with even the most simple steps, such as the same basic security as a kid having a beer with a meal?

"BUT BUSH!"

Enough, this isn't about Bush or any tin-foil hat theory you've found on the web. This is a baby step in slowing down voting fraud.

When it comes to issues of voter identification:

1) A voter should identify themselves in order to obtain a ballot. I think the vast majority agree with this. Providing a photo ID is not unreasonable as a means of establishing identification of a voter. Other means such as vetting should also be sufficient, but if abused in certain communities, limiting ID to government issued photo ID may be permissible.

2) If the sole means accepted at the poll is an ID, a photo ID must be available from the government that meets this requirement.

3) Poll taxes are an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction on the right to vote. As such they are seen as unacceptable by the vast majority, and are rightly prohibited by Federal law.

4) Charging a fee (tax) on an ID document that constitutes the only valid means to vote (or on all documents that constitute options to vote) is an end run around the prohibition on a poll tax, and thus such documents should be available without cost to citizens.

I should like to know if folks feel such a plan would both satisfy the need for election integrity while also not posing an obstacle for any citizen to exercise their right to vote, as guaranteed in our Constitution.

jewels443, in you post #38 on page 1, you posted:
I am sorry I interpreted your sentences in my reply to pan, as supporting the opinion that a new Voter ID requirement is "discriminatory against blacks", if that is not inferred by you in that post....
Seaver, since this is the way this thread's OP ended:
....and because I've done a thorough and persuasive job of demonstrating that the "vote fraud" the Indiana "Voter ID" was justified as "preventing", does not, in fact, exist....it is a fraudulant component of a 30 years old coordinated republican vote suppression "Op", I thought, and continue to think it is the most important thing to post about, here.

The concept of someone showing up at the polls, claiming to be someone else is ridiculous, not believable. Is it not true that no Voter ID is required to submit a vote by absentee ballot?
There is no "in person at the polls on voting day" fraud, Seaver. There were no WMD, either....sheesh !!!!!!!!!!!!

(Seaver, if you suddenly get curious enough to read the Slate piece above, by the Loyola law professor, and you click on a link that turns out to be dead, I'm pretty good at finding the page the link was intended to point to, or the material that was on it when the link was live. Please PM me or post a request here, and I'll try to find it for you.)

US Military members... who vote in VAST quantities Republican. I seem to remember the Democrats trying to get these thrown out in Florida.... convenient.

Host, I'm not saying it's widespread and a plague. What I'm pointing out is your rediculous partisanship on this issue. You throw a fit about dibold, how Bush was not elected on two separate occasions because of fraud. And then you follow up with a blackball of THE MOST SIMPLE method of preventing fraud.

My ridiculous partisanship? The corrupt Florida "Felon voter purge list" changed the outcome of the 2000 US presidential race....and the current, fairy tale "Vote fraud" op, destroyed the reputation and functionality of the US Justice Dept.

I'm outraged....screaming...pounding.....arggggghhhhhh abso-fucking-lutely veins pounding in the temples.....disgusted with the relentless attempts by republican elected and party officials to undermine the country, fake non-issues into relevance, and dismiss real issues....if you're not, you wouldn't understand.