Photo ID for voting: Why not?
 

In Georgia there is a new law (blocked for the moment) that requires voters to be able to show a photo ID as proof of identity when voting. In general this is opposed by Democrats in the state and favored by Republicans, though the division is not perfectly on party lines.
The argument I have heard against it is that a requirement to have a photo ID is more burdensome on the poor and the uneducated. I’m not sure I buy that, but I would like to hear an explanation before making up my mind.
I think we all agree that voter fraud is bad. The infamous “dead voter” is not the only kind of fraud, but should be one of the easiest to stop. Given that people already must register to vote, and must regularly prove ID for other reasons, it does not seem out of line to prove identity to vote.
Do I have a mistaken concept of how hard it is to get a photo ID? Or is there some underlying rationale for being able to vote without proof of identity that I am overlooking?

Background: I am sensitive to the issue since in the last presidential election, my son showed up to vote and was told he had already voted. It took several hours to resolve the problem.

IIRC, i have to ...oh wait, i just had to give my voter's card...innnteresting.
next election, i'm going to try to vote early and vote often..i'll let you know how it goes :)

i had to show my id last time. i don't know why it is such a big deal with some people either, but i've never seen any statistics one way or the other. in my experience, i heard no complaints at the polls or in the news.

People should have identification, regardless of whether they vote or not, or are poor or uneducated. I don't see any problem with asking for ID.

I don't know how it works in the states, but here by us you can't even get into the voting station without presenting ID, be it a ZA ID or a passport, both containing a photo. There's 2 more ID checks after that plus a check to see whether you've actually registered somewhere in the middle. And before you step into the booth a black ink is applied to your left thumbnail that somehow penetrates the nail and is impossible to remove without actually removing the nail.

ID is vital.

The only problem I have with it is with the difficulty of getting a photo ID in the future. With the passing of the REAL ID act, every drivers license will be federalized and require cross checking of SS numbers and birth certificates with other federal agencies.

I know in Indiana they have closed many of our BMV branches. It's just more hoops to jump through in order to get a valid driver's license and photo ID for voting. Basically if you are a citizen and have difficulty obtaining a photo ID for whatever reason, you become a non-citizen.

Better get your papers in order before 2008.

So, you have to show ID. Big deal. I don't see how it's an issue, much less a "hardship".

In the state of Maryland you are already required to have either a driver's license or a Maryland ID card once you turn eighteen. So here it wouldn't be that hard to implement.

I've been watching the news for it. The Liberals are claiming that the poor can not afford to take time off and purchase an ID card. However attached to this bill says that if you're poor and/or have no transportation, they'll come to your house to issue it.

They also claim that those with warrants and/or felonies would be too afraid to vote. Which is dumb IMO. Those people either shouldn't vote anyways or in the case of felonies are not allowed to in the first place.

i think i'd trust it more, if other efforts a "vote integrity" weren't so heavily laced with racism already. In MN, the Sec of State decided at the last minute that Tribal IDs weren't valid for instance. Basically disenfranchised entire communities with the stroke of a pen. Did I mention she's Republican, and the reservations vote heavily DFL?

Call me paranoid...but it's shit like this that makes me think that vote integrity is just another word for keeping your opposition away from the polls by legal means.

In regards to Tribal ID's why wouldn't they be allowed to recieve legal ID's via the state they're in as opposed to their ID's through their reservation?

It,s causing confusion already. This isn't something we need. And yes it does put barriers between people and voting that are not needed.

Keep in mind that not only can many people not afford to take time away from work to get these IDs but the IDs themselves are not free. So if the chances are someone can't afford to take off work to gt their ID, they probably can't afford to purchase it either (taking a double income hit).


*Basically you would be adding a MONETARY CHARGE to voting. THAT is not right.*

I don't see any problem with this. I can't help but wonder if the support/opposition is based entirely on party lines. The whole republican/democrat thing is getting a little old for me. Politics is becoming more and more like some kind of warped gang membership.

I don't think you are correct on this. The information that I heard was that the ID's were free and you could call and they would drive to your house or work and create the ID for you. Apparently, they are going to create a mobile card making van that will make house calls.

So, assuming that I was correctly informed: if it was free and they would come to you, would you still object?

You noticed that too, eh?

Just based on that statement, and what I understand of the subject (not much :D), aren't American Indian tribes considered in some way "seperate" nations (although still citizens)?

If that is the case, it seems to me that IDs issued by anyone other then the state are the ones not allowed, and those would be included. Just like they probably wouldn't allow someone with a Wisconsin-issued ID.

I think i would still object, yes. Even if the person getting the card isn't paying, someone has to pay for that mobile service. And that will fall to the tax payers (which includes that person getting the "free" card). So you're still basically paying to vote. And the last thing we need is higher taxes.

And if this obstacle to voting is allowed what will be next? The voting process should be as easy as possible, and should not involve any kind of money changing hands at any level. Registering to vote is already enough.

The tribal IDs are used for everything else, and recognize the *limited soveriengty* of the nations. But no, they do have standing to vote in elections at state and national elections...and they have a recognized legal right to have their identification done by their laws...because membership in the tribe often has other consequences as well. Hunting and fishing regulations are different, etc...

It was widely recognized in MN for what it was...a bald faced move to keep people from voting for partisan reasons.

Two questions:

Are the IDs issued by the state?

Are other photo IDs not issued by the state eligible?

I don't agree with the policy; I'm just thinking of possible reasons for it.

Of course, it unfortunately is probably as simple as you put it.

On the face, I can't really say I have a theoretical problem with this. I think the opposition to it is from a pragmatic standpoint: parts of the South are crippled with generational poverty, which disproportionately affect minorities; traditionally blacks. I think a lot of people might find it hypocritical for people to worry extensively over whether blacks have an ID to vote once every 2 or 4 years, but not make meaningful changes to their lives such that they aren't dirt poor. Most middle class 18 year olds have drivers licenses; most super-broke 18 year olds may not. The povery lines in a lot of places down here split very interestingly along racial lines.

This may beg the question of whether its the state's responsibility to worry about whether the whole mindset / living conditions of being poor make getting an ID a greater obstacle or not, or whether we want "those people" (poor / uneducated) voting, but I think that's the crux of the argument for those opposed to such laws. I personally think that this sounds like a great idea, taken out of context so to speak; but I think it would practically have the effect of making the poor much less likely to be voting.

Here in Oregon one is already required to validate their registration with ID with the county elections office when they register for the first time. Acceptable forms of identification include a copy of your current, valid photo identification (such as a driver's license), or a copy of a paycheck stub, utility bill, bank statement or government document showing your name and address. You can either do this in person or via mail. As we do vote-by-mail here in Oregon, no ID is necessary at the polls--but your signature had better resemble the one on file!

OK, I have made up my mind, in favor of the photo ID required.
I do see your point that additional complexity and cost in government at any level should be avoided when possible, and barriers that keep valid voters from the polls are also bad.

The problem is that evidently dead people and people who didn't leave home show up as having voted. Obviously, people are casting votes for others. It's not clear how we can stop this if we can't require that people identify themselves.

ya know, after working on get out hte vote campaigns and helping at the polls, if anyone really wanted to commit fraud, it really wouldn't be hard. just have one of 'your people' working at the polling area. in my neighborhood, there were 2 people confirming names, one for letters a-m and then n-z...and they were people known in the neighborhood. They were using paper printouts and pencils to mark the people off as they came in to get ballots and vote. it really would not take much effort to conveniently not mark someone...repeatedly.. my area also barely keeps up with how many votes are cast vs how many people are crossed off the list.

The sad part is that my town is about 50,000 people with several polling stations. get enough people in enough small towns and bammo, you've just won an election..

Yes, but the state purchases voting machines, prints voter reg cards, prints voting lists for cross-reference, pays for hardware and software to count the votes, pays for food and beverages of the poll volunteers who monitor the voting booths, etc. Those costs all are incurred to insure a proper and fair election - so that the will of the people is correctly heard. Those costs are paid for by the voter right now. Myself, as a voter, will continue to willingly pay for these features so that my vote IS heard correctly. How do photo-ID cards differ from the above list, in terms of insuring an accurate vote? What's more, the effective rate to you, the tax payer, for this service would probably be $1.00, when spread out across the 5 million tax payers in the state. You can bet your ass I would pay an extra dollar in taxes to make sure my vote wasn't cancelled out by a dead guy!



P.S. I am a registered independent.