Originally Posted By WilliamK99 OK, I saw this on CNN yesterday where they spent an hour debating how the Supreme Court Decision which upheld a state law which required you to produce an ID to vote was disenfranchising voters. My question is, how is being forced to show Identification to vote disenfranchising you? They claimed it would hurt Democrats more than Republicans and then went on how this is another plot by the Republicans to try and steal the election. IMO, showing identification to vote should be mandatory, how else do you ensure that you and only you are placing the vote for who you say you are....
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 IMO, showing identification to vote should be mandatory, how else can the Government ensure that you and only you are placing the vote and are who you say you are.... Sorry screwed up my last paragraph.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, that's tricky because I do believe the law does NOT require you to possess an ID card right? The only reasons I know for people to get one are to drive a car, or for some friends who had no drivers licence they'd get a state ID card in order to buy booze. I have no idea how they have kept track of who's who in the past though, because as you say there has to be SOME way to verify that you are who you say you are and are only casting one vote in one place. So I dunno. The idea of anything "mandatory" in order to vote though, sounds a little big brother to me. Especially in this day and age of the computer swipe cards and all that (my new passport has a computer chip in it *cue ominous music*).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I've never been asked to show ID when voting and I've always thought that was somewhat strange. I've been trying to think how showing an ID would disenfranchise someone, and I just can't see it. With voting age being 18, a person can at least get an ID card, if not a license, which apparently would be sufficient. In this day and age of absolute idiots encouraging voter fraud by temporarily registering in a another party simply to throw the oppostion's primary into disarray, illegal aliens voting, going back to the 1960 elections when dead people in Chicago helped Kennedy carry the state, to the old joke of "vote early and often", I see it as a way of preserving a bit of integrity in the voting process.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I just don't see how anybody can exist in this day and age without a form of Identification. From getting a job to buying alcohol, to even getting a bank account you need to show an I.D., so I don't see why showing an I.D. for voting wouldn't be any different.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP I agree with the supreme court that it's not too much to ask, but I'll explain a bit why some people think it is. First of all, Indiana's law specifically required *government issued* *picture id*. Of course the idea was that most people will drive and will use their driver's licence, so as Mr. X metioned, will have a state id, usually issued by the same people who issue drivers licencess, you just haven't passes a drivers test. However, the people least likely to have these things are the people least likely to vote normally. I'm thinking of the elderly, whose bank accounts are all set up and whose last driver's licence expired years ago. Sure, they may had a Medi-Care card, but I don't think those things have pictures. Also, all Driver's licences, and State ID cards, to my knowledge, have a fee attached. So, that is a round about way of having people pay a fee for the right to vote. Obvously the Court felt it was a REALLY round about way, but it's there. Those with out IDs are those on the fringes, the people least likely to vote, and the people who have the most contact with government programs, so the people who have the best case for voting. Thats the arguement.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I just don't see how anybody can exist in this day and age without a form of Identification.*** Ain't that kinda the scary part? Granted, you need an id to buy liquer, to get a desk job of some sort, and to get a bank account. But what if you don't care for any of that. What if you own a piece of land, farm for your living...don't care for banks (PLENTY of depression era folks feel that way), and don't like the whole id thing. Should that person not be allowed to vote?
Originally Posted By dshyates "Should that person not be allowed to vote?" Yep, no vote for him. He's too wierd to allow is opinion to influence the direction of the country. He should be more like me.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Here is the actual ruling... <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/w...7-21.pdf</a> And a news story <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/29scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...f=slogin</a> And the ID requirement has been pushed for by Former President Jimmy Carter and others.... <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2005/BakerCarter_commission_recommends_national_v_0919.html" target="_blank">http://rawstory.com/news/2005/...919.html</a> <a href="http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.american.edu/ia/cfe...port.pdf</a> >>"Opponents of a voter photo ID argue that requiring one is unnecessary and discriminatory," commissioner Susan Molinari wrote. "In 2004, elections in Washington state and Wisconsin were decided by illegal votes." Molinari said the commission included measures that would prevent the cards from being an undue burden on those of lower incomes. "The safeguards include initiatives to locate those voters without IDs and provide them one without cost," she added. "Under the recommendation, eligible votes can cast a provisional ballot that will be counted if they present their photo ID within 48 hours."<< I want a paper trail, and I want folks who want to vote to be able to prove they are eligible to vote in the election (basically an US citizen who is not ineligible, such as a current felon), and that they live in the proper precinct, and that they only vote once. (There have been some issues of people voting in 2 states in the same election). Bring on the Federal database that keeps track of your official "residence", and use tax records to help keep track of it. Such as someone who splits their time between New York and Florida, and want to claim Florida as their "residence", since they have no state tax, but want to vote in New York. You can only have ONE primary residence I need an ID for a lot of things I want to do, writing a check, boarding a plane or Amtrak train, entering a Federal Building, getting an Annual Pass at Disneyland, etc. Indiana Law allows the issuing of a State ID without cost if you can prove the need for it, and also other alternatives if you don't have an ID when you go to cast your ballot (such as a provisional ballot, where you have 10 days after the election to prove you have the right to vote). Also, use the "death" lists to help purge the current election database, and keep it current. Use the USPS "forwarding" database to keep track of people who move. And verify that folks who are registering to vote are truly US Citizens, and not some type of non-citizen who is in the country for "whatever" reason". (And yes, some folks who are in the country legally, but not a citizen have voted). Heck, the Mexican government has some very strict rules, including a special Voter ID that includes a photo and a Thumb Print, along with a verified address. And then the Voter Role on the day of the election has your name and photo. And you HAVE to go to your exact precinct to prevent someone from trying to affect a different contest than they are supposed to vote on. Sorry, but I have a BIG problem of someone walking up to the election, and "just" claiming they should be allowed to vote. One "eligible" person, one vote. And we need safeguards to make sure that is what happens. I am also not very comfortable with the current "Absentee" Ballot system, I would much rather see "Early Voting" centers, such as at local malls and other major public centers. A location where you have to show up, prove who you are, and then be allowed to go in "private" to cast your ballot. The current system allows me to sign the back of the envelope, but I "could" sell the ballot to someone else and allow him/her to fill in the ballot. Yes, this is ILLEGAL and Wrong, but there is nothing stopping it from happening! We need safeguards to help preserve the "faith" of the election process, and that includes a good paper trail, and the fact that we can have assurances that only those folks who are eligible are casting a vote. So we give away a few ID cards for free, heck, how many other things are the government paying for, including health and education....
Originally Posted By dshyates "I need an ID for a lot of things I want to do, writing a check, boarding a plane or Amtrak train, entering a Federal Building, getting an Annual Pass at Disneyland, etc." But these are activities of your choosing and not a constitutionally guaranteed right. I personally think that for this very reason state issued photo IDs should be free to anyone, and required to vote. If you cannot produce the documants that prove that you are legally eligible to vote than that is your problem.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942822004851153.html?mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...rialPage</a> >>Voter ID laws don't discourage voting, but they do discourage fraud and increase voter confidence in the system. The Court's common sense ruling protects the public's belief that elections will be fair and honest.<<
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I just don't see how anybody can exist in this day and age without a form of Identification. From getting a job to buying alcohol, to even getting a bank account you need to show an I.D., so I don't see why showing an I.D. for voting wouldn't be any different.<< It's hard to believe that we've come to the point where you're required to have government ID just to live in "the land of the free." This is the kind of thing right-wing Republicans used to warn us about, and we thought they were crazy. Does anybody else have visions of old movies where some officious Nazi or Soviet border guard demands to see the hero's papers, and that's how the audience knew the movie was set in a police state?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "This is the kind of thing right-wing Republicans used to warn us about, and we thought they were crazy." Well, if they'd quit encouraging the faithful to cross-over and vote in another party's primary there would be that much less to worry about.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I don't have a problem with requiring ID for voting per se, but I think that a state issued ID should be free if they're going to require it. I've never been asked to show ID but I've had to sign my name on the roster. I suppose it could cut down on anyone trying to vote more than once, but anyone could walk in and say they are me.
Originally Posted By DAR Well we don't have to worry about that here: <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744560" target="_blank">http://www.jsonline.com/story/...d=744560</a> BTW the person quoted below: <<U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, a Milwaukee Democrat, said in a statement that the Supreme Court ruling validated an "unconstitutional solution in search of a problem." She said, "It is sad that the court finds it acceptable to turn back the clock and once again sanction the disenfranchisement of voters.">> Her son was part of a group of people that participated in slashing tires of a van that the Republican party was using to take voters to the polls. Of course that's not disenfranchisement. How this idiot got elected astounds me.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf ID's are necessary to get on airplanes, rent movies, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, use your credit card and register your kids for little league baseball. I think ensuring voting is carried out properly is at least as imporatant as making sure a 20 year-old isn't buying a six-pack of keystone light.
