djones520 wrote: So why aren't we up in arms about Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, and how they require it?
Because they aren't America? That's like saying "Why aren't we complaining about the UK's gun laws?" in defense of US gun restrictions.
The point is voter id disenfranching voters is absolute crap. Most nations in the world have it, to include many nations that we consider free. Hell, we have frequent arguments on here about how some of those nations are "free'er" then we are.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't get the problem with voter ID. How hard is it to get any sort of official ID in the US if you are a legal citizen?
It can be quite hard, especially if officials make it that way. Watch the video in a little bit (I think around 1:40) that's one person just trying to get an ID solely to vote. Compound that with the fact that laws like this serve no actual purpose (talks about it at 6:45).
Sigvatr wrote: I don't get the problem with voter ID. How hard is it to get any sort of official ID in the US if you are a legal citizen?
It's not hard to get them. In fact, it's harder to live here without them.
Fun fact - - I just got married. Do you know what I had to show? TWO forms of government issued IDs: -Social Security Card -Government issued IDs (ie, Drivers License, Military ID, etc..)
Wouldn't you think your *right* to get married is a weee bit more important/life changing than exercising your voting rights?
And yet, your marriage isn't recognized unless you show the necessary IDsat the government officeto get the required paperworks isn't championed as some sort of 'disenfranchisement' of certain people!?!?
I'd say voting is far more important than government recognized marriages. I would, in fact, say that it, and the first amendment, are our most important rights.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd say voting is far more important than government recognized marriages. I would, in fact, say that it, and the first amendment, are our most important rights.
Then if you believe it's so important, then you should champion VoterID laws as it's meant to prevent bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd say voting is far more important than government recognized marriages. I would, in fact, say that it, and the first amendment, are our most important rights.
Then if you believe it's so important, then you should champion VoterID laws as it's meant to prevent bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds.
As always, how many bogus ballots are actually cast in elections?
Voter ID is terrible because the only places to get valid voter IDs will magically appear in areas almost inaccessible to minorities and the lower classes. They are simple yet another method of disenfranchising poor and minority voters by Republicans.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd say voting is far more important than government recognized marriages. I would, in fact, say that it, and the first amendment, are our most important rights.
Then if you believe it's so important, then you should champion VoterID laws as it's meant to prevent bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds.
No, because the only type of voter fraud that ID laws stop are impersonation, which is practically non-existent. If you watched the video, you would see that there were 5 votes out of 1.4M in SC that were unaccounted for. 5
And the number for people without access to ID, (from the video)in Texas, 500,000 , NC and Wisconsin at 300,000 each, and 200,000 in Virginia.
So, it's a law that does nothing good, and impinges on people rights. If they were trying to make election fairer and more open, this is not what they would do.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd say voting is far more important than government recognized marriages. I would, in fact, say that it, and the first amendment, are our most important rights.
Then if you believe it's so important, then you should champion VoterID laws as it's meant to prevent bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds.
As always, how many bogus ballots are actually cast in elections?
Verviedi wrote: Voter ID is terrible because the only places to get valid voter IDs will magically appear in areas almost inaccessible to minorities and the lower classes. They are simple yet another method of disenfranchising poor and minority voters by Republicans.
So you're saying that these minorities and lower classes won't be able to get married too?
Verviedi wrote: Voter ID is terrible because the only places to get valid voter IDs will magically appear in areas almost inaccessible to minorities and the lower classes. They are simple yet another method of disenfranchising poor and minority voters by Republicans.
So you're saying that these minorities and lower classes won't be able to get married too?
So you're saying that these laws are necessary when they do nothing to actually prevent the problem of people being on the voter rolls and being able to vote in the first place?
We've done this dance before, Whembly. Every time it comes down to one simple fact:
These laws won't stop voter fraud if the person is on the voter rolls.
Verviedi wrote: Voter ID is terrible because the only places to get valid voter IDs will magically appear in areas almost inaccessible to minorities and the lower classes. They are simple yet another method of disenfranchising poor and minority voters by Republicans.
So you're saying that these minorities and lower classes won't be able to get married too?
They must not smoke, drink or live in buildings either. Or drive cars. Or collect welfare.
Verviedi wrote: Voter ID is terrible because the only places to get valid voter IDs will magically appear in areas almost inaccessible to minorities and the lower classes. They are simple yet another method of disenfranchising poor and minority voters by Republicans.
So you're saying that these minorities and lower classes won't be able to get married too?
They must not smoke, drink or live in buildings either. Or drive cars. Or collect welfare.
Right, because we haven't seen them attempt to make certain forms of ID that can be used for some of those ineligible for voter ID.
I thought the USA was the home of the free? Compared to Britain, you guys are enslaved
At elections, I don't even have to turn up with ID to vote. It's the same guy on the desk who's know me for years. He checks my name on the list, hands me a voting card and away I go.
To get married over here, all you need is a passport and two witnesses, who can be total strangers dragged off the streets
Our kids can get drunk at 18, and not have to wait until they're 21
And our gun laws are the most open on earth. You can own any firearm you want: rifle, machine gun, rocket launcher etc etc, as long as it's made from potato chips
Home of the brave? land of the free? It's a myth. You Americans need some Freeeeddoooom
Actually, that's a lot what it's like in states w/o ID laws. You will register in your district and, when it comes voting time, you go to the assigned polling place. At that point they check your name and you so whatever that area does for voting. During the local elections we used a sort of multiple choice test thing (filling in bubbles with a pencil that they run through a machine), but they may have to drag out the old lever-operated voting machines depending on state law.
Right, because we haven't seen them attempt to make certain forms of ID that can be used for some of those ineligible for voter ID.
Oh I don't necessarily agree with voter ID laws (I don't really pay much attention to the issue), but I do find it interesting that it is claimed that one reason for enacting them is to restrict the voting rights of a certain demographic, when that certain demographic frequently engages in activity that requires photo ID.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't get the problem with voter ID. How hard is it to get any sort of official ID in the US if you are a legal citizen?
First, why bother commenting in a video without watching it? I mean, this was covered within the first like, 3 minutes of the video.
Second, one of the things he didn't speak to in the video was the expense. I needed to get my birth certificate a few years ago after my original got lost. To get a birth certificate for someone born in NYC, one needs to only pay the $15 fee, plus a $8.30 processing fee (lol, what was the first fee for). Of course, they can't mail it through the mail - they have to send it UPS only, which is another $15. So, nearly $40 for my birth certificate.
If I didn't have a driver's license, which of course people with ID don't, all I'd have to do is take a day off work to sit around the DMV, because my DMV isn't open on the weekends. Then pay another $10 fee.
These are real hardships for people who are just barely keeping the lights on and buying ramen and peanut butter. It's a day of work off, along with another 8 hours worth of wages at minimum wage.
It's absolutely undeniable that people will and are disenfranchised by these laws; and it's also undeniable that the problem that it's trying to address is statistically non-existent. However, I guess this is one example of commonsense legislation to make the nation safer at the cost of some of our rights that some of us are OK with.
Anyway, when we start getting into how people need ID to live anyway, and how you can't buy X without an ID, and so on, I point you to the link that D-USA posted above, because there is generally no new information or ideas ever to be had in these comments, I only piped in because John Oliver never mentioned that getting the paperwork for the ID is, in my opinion, surprisingly expensive.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't get the problem with voter ID. How hard is it to get any sort of official ID in the US if you are a legal citizen?
First, why bother commenting in a video without watching it? I mean, this was covered within the first like, 3 minutes of the video.
Second, one of the things he didn't speak to in the video was the expense. I needed to get my birth certificate a few years ago after my original got lost. To get a birth certificate for someone born in NYC, one needs to only pay the $15 fee, plus a $8.30 processing fee (lol, what was the first fee for). Of course, they can't mail it through the mail - they have to send it UPS only, which is another $15. So, nearly $40 for my birth certificate.
If I didn't have a driver's license, which of course people with ID don't, all I'd have to do is take a day off work to sit around the DMV, because my DMV isn't open on the weekends. Then pay another $10 fee.
These are real hardships for people who are just barely keeping the lights on and buying ramen and peanut butter. It's a day of work off, along with another 8 hours worth of wages at minimum wage.
It's absolutely undeniable that people will and are disenfranchised by these laws; and it's also undeniable that the problem that it's trying to address is statistically non-existent. However, I guess this is one example of commonsense legislation to make the nation safer at the cost of some of our rights that some of us are OK with.
Anyway, when we start getting into how people need ID to live anyway, and how you can't buy X without an ID, and so on, I point you to the link that D-USA posted above, because there is generally no new information or ideas ever to be had in these comments, I only piped in because John Oliver never mentioned that getting the paperwork for the ID is, in my opinion, surprisingly expensive.
Then those people must not have a job either. You are required to provide two forms of identification to be legally employed.
Anybody who can't provide an ID probably can't get a job either. Or they're not even going to bother voting, because hey thats a day they have to take off of work if the polling place is a good distance away(I think voting days should be mandatory days off of work IMO).
So sure, IDs might cost money to acquire, but you literally cannot function in our society without them.
skyth wrote: You can be self employed and not need ID.
And it's also possible that they don't use tobacco, drink alcohol, cash checks, or drive anywhere, ever.
When we get down to it, the number of hairs we're splitting are getting pretty ridiculous, especially when you take into account how laughable our voter turnout in this nation really is. The incredibly small percentage of people who would face a true "hardship" in getting this is so small that it's ridiculous, and honestly if someone wants to vote, they will make it happen.
If I went through the effort to get my registration updated, and cast my vote from Kyrgyzstan, the amount of pity I'm going to feel for someone who had to spend half an hour at the DMV is pretty damn low.
I mean this argument is just ridiculous. I've spent multiple deployments where my job involved getting F-16's and B-1's into the sky so they could deliver bombs onto people who were trying to blow up voters. These were voters who faced the very real prospect of being murdered for the simple act of voting, and we're here fighting over how hard it would be for someone to get a card with their picture on it before they can vote.
Our societies views on somethings tends to upset me sometimes.
skyth wrote: You can be self employed and not need ID.
And it's also possible that they don't use tobacco, drink alcohol, cash checks, or drive anywhere, ever.
When we get down to it, the number of hairs we're splitting are getting pretty ridiculous, especially when you take into account how laughable our voter turnout in this nation really is. The incredibly small percentage of people who would face a true "hardship" in getting this is so small that it's ridiculous, and honestly if someone wants to vote, they will make it happen.
If I went through the effort to get my registration updated, and cast my vote from Kyrgyzstan, the amount of pity I'm going to feel for someone who had to spend half an hour at the DMV is pretty damn low.
I mean this argument is just ridiculous. I've spent multiple deployments where my job involved getting F-16's and B-1's into the sky so they could deliver bombs onto people who were trying to blow up voters. These were voters who faced the very real prospect of being murdered for the simple act of voting, and we're here fighting over how hard it would be for someone to get a card with their picture on it before they can vote.
Our societies views on somethings tends to upset me sometimes.
skyth wrote: You can be self employed and not need ID.
And it's also possible that they don't use tobacco, drink alcohol, cash checks, or drive anywhere, ever.
When we get down to it, the number of hairs we're splitting are getting pretty ridiculous, especially when you take into account how laughable our voter turnout in this nation really is. The incredibly small percentage of people who would face a true "hardship" in getting this is so small that it's ridiculous, and honestly if someone wants to vote, they will make it happen.
If I went through the effort to get my registration updated, and cast my vote from Kyrgyzstan, the amount of pity I'm going to feel for someone who had to spend half an hour at the DMV is pretty damn low.
I mean this argument is just ridiculous. I've spent multiple deployments where my job involved getting F-16's and B-1's into the sky so they could deliver bombs onto people who were trying to blow up voters. These were voters who faced the very real prospect of being murdered for the simple act of voting, and we're here fighting over how hard it would be for someone to get a card with their picture on it before they can vote.
Our societies views on somethings tends to upset me sometimes.
So are you arguing for or against voter ID?
He's arguing that it's okay if voting is nearly impossible because our voter turnout is terrible and unstable dictatorships have it harder, you know... like it says in the Constitution.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: He's arguing that it's okay if voting is nearly impossible because our voter turnout is terrible and unstable dictatorships have it harder, you know... like it says in the Constitution.
No, more that it's OK to raise unnecessary, artificial roadblocks to address statistically nonexistent problem with the very real effect of disenfranchising people, because people in third world countries have a different set of challenges which aren't really salient to the US, but are hard for them.
I think. The old "it's OK to do gakky things, as long as it's worse somewhere else" routine.
I feel like a lot of people aren't watching that video. They argue the Sam point that it debunks, that there is significant fraud and that it can be prevented with these laws. All evidence points to almost no fraud and the numbers that it occurs in are minuscule. The number of voters that would have this ability to vote made at the very least more difficult outnumbers that more than 1000 to 1. Afghanistan isn't the United States, the situations of everyday people are very different and to make it seem like if you aren't going to catch a bullet trying to vote then you should be able to overcome any challenge in your way in order to vote is naive.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't get the problem with voter ID. How hard is it to get any sort of official ID in the US if you are a legal citizen?
First, why bother commenting in a video without watching it? I mean, this was covered within the first like, 3 minutes of the video.
Second, one of the things he didn't speak to in the video was the expense. I needed to get my birth certificate a few years ago after my original got lost. To get a birth certificate for someone born in NYC, one needs to only pay the $15 fee, plus a $8.30 processing fee (lol, what was the first fee for). Of course, they can't mail it through the mail - they have to send it UPS only, which is another $15. So, nearly $40 for my birth certificate.
If I didn't have a driver's license, which of course people with ID don't, all I'd have to do is take a day off work to sit around the DMV, because my DMV isn't open on the weekends. Then pay another $10 fee.
These are real hardships for people who are just barely keeping the lights on and buying ramen and peanut butter. It's a day of work off, along with another 8 hours worth of wages at minimum wage.
It's absolutely undeniable that people will and are disenfranchised by these laws; and it's also undeniable that the problem that it's trying to address is statistically non-existent. However, I guess this is one example of commonsense legislation to make the nation safer at the cost of some of our rights that some of us are OK with.
Anyway, when we start getting into how people need ID to live anyway, and how you can't buy X without an ID, and so on, I point you to the link that D-USA posted above, because there is generally no new information or ideas ever to be had in these comments, I only piped in because John Oliver never mentioned that getting the paperwork for the ID is, in my opinion, surprisingly expensive.
Then those people must not have a job either. You are required to provide two forms of identification to be legally employed.
Anybody who can't provide an ID probably can't get a job either. Or they're not even going to bother voting, because hey thats a day they have to take off of work if the polling place is a good distance away(I think voting days should be mandatory days off of work IMO).
So sure, IDs might cost money to acquire, but you literally cannot function in our society without them.
They MUST not have a job. Its not like you could be employed and then lose your ID or have it destroyed in say a flood/fire, or have it stolen. People never misplace things. Those things absolutely never happen.
Wow. You didn't think this argument through did you?
They must not smoke, drink or live in buildings either. Or drive cars. Or collect welfare.
How many employers provide some form of "ID" card? Or local colleges? Neither of them are "government issued" (unless the employer is the DoD, or other fed/state agency), but I have seen/heard them used for welfare smoking/drinking and even living.
I personally am of the opinion that the voter ID laws, as typically written are most definitely designed to discriminate against groups of voters without actually appearing to discriminate.
Someone on page 1 mentioned a number of European countries... don't many of them have FREE IDs available? I never had to get an actual German ID, but it was in the same office/building as the birth certificate office in my town, and it was open more than the banks.
As the video points out: there are a number of designated offices that sell IDs (with the exception of drivers' licensing, there shouldn't be any money exchanged), but how effective are they really if they are only open on the 5th Wednesday of the month, or other ridiculous situations like that? It is that kind of opening hours scheme that directly impacts the poor (and in this case, that disproportionately affects blacks and latinos)
I would be "OK" with a Voter ID law IF they fixed all the other problems surrounding the acquisition of an ID in the first place, but because Republicans love to waste money in other ways, the IDs won't get fixed, so I will continue having a problem with this.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the number of places that I have used my library card before joining the army, was ridiculous. There's literally NOTHING behind a library card but the sharpie writing of your name, and 3 or 4 lines of information... When I got mine, it was just a file card index with my name, address and my parent/guardians name (for late fees obviously)
How does that prove anything, and yet for situations like when I got my driving permit, I used that library card, and it was valid as one of my forms of ID
11% is the difference between reality and people's common sense.
Because 11% is the number of eligible voters in the US who lack the photo ID these laws require. And 0% is what lots of people like to think that number is, based on their 'common sense' understanding of what ID people must have.
But people ignore that number, or never even bother to try and find out what that number might be. Because they've got common sense dammit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I would be "OK" with a Voter ID law IF they fixed all the other problems surrounding the acquisition of an ID in the first place, but because Republicans love to waste money in other ways, the IDs won't get fixed, so I will continue having a problem with this.
Yeah, if a law like this came with an attached budget to provide basic photo ID free of charge to everyone who needed it, then it'd be okay. But of course, who'd bother to put up money to fix a voter fraud issue that doesn't exist?
But that's never even been considered, because the real reason behind these laws have nothing to do with vote fraud.
Most jurisdictions in the United States have some sort of identification requirement for voting already. Even if it's just to check you off a list of registered voters for that district at the local polling place, before handing you a ballot. If you, for some reason, are not on the list you need to produce a valid State I.D. and a voter registration card. But you have to vote in the area you are registered in, even if you don't reside there anymore, until you get your voter registration updated at the Board of Elections.
Voting has never been just a "walk-in and do it affair". They do have to confirm that it's actually you and that you can still vote.
Most jurisdictions in the United States have some sort of identification requirement for voting already. Even if it's just to check you off a list of registered voters for that district at the local polling place, before handing you a ballot. If you, for some reason, are not on the list you need to produce a valid State I.D. and a voter registration card. But you have to vote in the area you are registered in, even if you don't reside there anymore, until you get your voter registration updated at the Board of Elections.
Voting has never been just a "walk-in and do it affair". They do have to confirm that it's actually you and that you can still vote.
Which is a big part of the problem with these laws.
They do NOTHING to stop the voter fraud that they claim that the laws are intended to stop. "Illegal immigrants, people stealing identities, etc" won't be stopped by having to produce a valid IDif their names are already on the voter registration rolls for a county.
I use ID to vote in Irelandistan. Makes sense to me. The voting area is run by locals who should know me, but I've moved and need to update the area I'm registered to vote in.
Next time they won't know who I am and the ID will be relevant.
I don't see when this is even a thing. Why would 11% of burgers not have an ID? I know a lot of you don't have passports, but you have licences for those guns, right?
=Angel= wrote: I use ID to vote in Irelandistan. Makes sense to me. The voting area is run by locals who should know me, but I've moved and need to update the area I'm registered to vote in.
Next time they won't know who I am and the ID will be relevant.
I don't see when this is even a thing. Why would 11% of burgers not have an ID? I know a lot of you don't have passports, but you have licences for those guns, right?
Despite what you might think, there aren't too many poor people with guns--or at least not necessarily legally purchased guns. You might have some heirloom guns that people don't have licenses for or older folks that have firearms but no driver's license.
What you need to understand about these voter ID laws? They're not strictly "You need ID to vote". When laws are passed, they often have other things folded into the bill.
Here in NC, Voter ID laws also removed the following:
Preregistration for teenagers who were coming up on their 18th birthday done at your high school, during school hours. We did that twice a year--once during the fall and once during the spring. That's how I was registered to vote by filling out the paperwork during my junior year of high school before school let out for the summer as I have a summer birthday and turned 18 by the time the November elections came through.
Reduction or removal of early voting sites. There was a lot of discussion when this happened here in NC as African-American churches tended to use the church vans(used for community outreach programs, events, etc) to go and pick up elderly members of their congregations to take them to vote on Sundays before or after church. A lot of elderly people either do not drive or are ineligible to obtain a driver's license because of poor eyesight, hearing, or medical conditions like Alzheimer's.
Not present in the bill but a part of the current suit against NC by the NAACP is the reduction of operating hours and locations of the NC DMV and a reduction of locations that offer the "state issued ID cards" which are considered valid for voting purposes as an alternative to driver's licenses.
Most jurisdictions in the United States have some sort of identification requirement for voting already. Even if it's just to check you off a list of registered voters for that district at the local polling place, before handing you a ballot. If you, for some reason, are not on the list you need to produce a valid State I.D. and a voter registration card. But you have to vote in the area you are registered in, even if you don't reside there anymore, until you get your voter registration updated at the Board of Elections.
Voting has never been just a "walk-in and do it affair". They do have to confirm that it's actually you and that you can still vote.
Which is a big part of the problem with these laws.
They do NOTHING to stop the voter fraud that they claim that the laws are intended to stop. "Illegal immigrants, people stealing identities, etc" won't be stopped by having to produce a valid IDif their names are already on the voter registration rolls for a county.
Oh, I agree that it won't stamp out "old school" fraud. In fact, we used to have a saying in my County in North Carolina: "The graveyards are full of registered voters". And some of the big farmers around here used to take truckloads of black farmhands to the polls to vote, promising them a bottle of liquor if they vote the way their boss wants them to (later on it was a bottle of cheap wine/case of beer and a nice bonus on their paychecks).
Even after the regulations came about regarding how far hawkers had to be from the polling lines and electronic ballot machines, when you shook hands with some of the same crooks (or their crooked descendants), when you pulled away you might find a twenty dollar bill in you palm and get a wink. Or course most folks I knew still voted for who they wanted to, and kept the money.
That kind of fraud can't be solved with requiring you to present your I.D. every time you vote. But my thing is, unless they come up with some sort of revenue-raising scheme for dedicated voter I.D. cards, I don't see the big deal (other than the fact that it's kinda pointless). Most folks have a driver's license. And if they don't, State I.D. cards are cheap, and can be acquired at the DMV License Office with minimum hassle. I just don't see the fuss over supposed "disenfranchisement" with these new regs as being anything more than making a mountain out of a molehill.
Despite what you might think, there aren't too many poor people with guns--or at least not necessarily legally purchased guns. You might have some heirloom guns that people don't have licenses for or older folks that have firearms but no driver's license.
What you need to understand about these voter ID laws? They're not strictly "You need ID to vote". When laws are passed, they often have other things folded into the bill.
Here in NC, Voter ID laws also removed the following:
Preregistration for teenagers who were coming up on their 18th birthday done at your high school, during school hours. We did that twice a year--once during the fall and once during the spring. That's how I was registered to vote by filling out the paperwork during my junior year of high school before school let out for the summer as I have a summer birthday and turned 18 by the time the November elections came through.
Reduction or removal of early voting sites. There was a lot of discussion when this happened here in NC as African-American churches tended to use the church vans(used for community outreach programs, events, etc) to go and pick up elderly members of their congregations to take them to vote on Sundays before or after church. A lot of elderly people either do not drive or are ineligible to obtain a driver's license because of poor eyesight, hearing, or medical conditions like Alzheimer's.
Not present in the bill but a part of the current suit against NC by the NAACP is the reduction of operating hours and locations of the NC DMV and a reduction of locations that offer the "state issued ID cards" which are considered valid for voting purposes as an alternative to driver's licenses.
Those sound like far more serious issues. I understand ID being required but if the cards are hard to get then that causes problems.
Pre-registration sounds like a good scheme. Was there a rationale for stopping that?
Early voting sites allowed you to bring your church's infirm to vote on the Sunday before polls opened officially? That sounds weird.
Despite what you might think, there aren't too many poor people with guns--or at least not necessarily legally purchased guns. You might have some heirloom guns that people don't have licenses for or older folks that have firearms but no driver's license.
What you need to understand about these voter ID laws? They're not strictly "You need ID to vote". When laws are passed, they often have other things folded into the bill.
Here in NC, Voter ID laws also removed the following:
Preregistration for teenagers who were coming up on their 18th birthday done at your high school, during school hours. We did that twice a year--once during the fall and once during the spring. That's how I was registered to vote by filling out the paperwork during my junior year of high school before school let out for the summer as I have a summer birthday and turned 18 by the time the November elections came through.
Reduction or removal of early voting sites. There was a lot of discussion when this happened here in NC as African-American churches tended to use the church vans(used for community outreach programs, events, etc) to go and pick up elderly members of their congregations to take them to vote on Sundays before or after church. A lot of elderly people either do not drive or are ineligible to obtain a driver's license because of poor eyesight, hearing, or medical conditions like Alzheimer's.
Not present in the bill but a part of the current suit against NC by the NAACP is the reduction of operating hours and locations of the NC DMV and a reduction of locations that offer the "state issued ID cards" which are considered valid for voting purposes as an alternative to driver's licenses.
Those sound like far more serious issues. I understand ID being required but if the cards are hard to get then that causes problems.
Pre-registration sounds like a good scheme. Was there a rationale for stopping that?
Early voting sites allowed you to bring your church's infirm to vote on the Sunday before polls opened officially? That sounds weird.
The rationale is that Raleigh claims, frequently, that the State is "broke". We got lectures on that crap all the time when I worked for the DOC/DOP.
So, there has been a lot of cuts in services and consolidation. We were merged with two or three other agencies before I left, and their were so many cuts and shortages, it wasn't funny.
Raleigh probably rationalizes it along the lines that they are not needed because of mail-in/absentee ballots available nowadays.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd say voting is far more important than government recognized marriages. I would, in fact, say that it, and the first amendment, are our most important rights.
Then if you believe it's so important, then you should champion VoterID laws as it's meant to prevent bogus ballots cast by foreigners, impersonators and frauds.
As always, how many bogus ballots are actually cast in elections?
What methodology would you propose to ascertain if a voter has fraudulently voted via fraudulently representing his person?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For anyone pursuing the disenfranchises minorities/racism angle;
Fine let's not directly peruse that angle, despite the silliness of your picture argument. The plain truth is the voter ID laws are intended to win the republican party elections, nothing more nothing less. That is their sole design and purpose and no matter if they achieve that through disenfranchising minorities, gaining the favor of leprechauns, or some other mechanism that's still the point of them. Skip to 9:45 in the video and hear that from the horse's mouth not mine. I'm not the one claiming the republicans are passing these laws to create election conditions favorable to them, they are.
Then I ask you. If as they themselves happily admit and directly state: The laws are made to swing elections in their favor and do work to swing elections in the favor by what mechanism do they operate?
Let us assume they are rational actors: When they pass these laws to help them win elections, they have cause to believe before passing them that doing so will achieve the goal they state they have for these laws. Regardless of the actual mechanism by which these laws swing elections their in favor, they must have one in mind. What would you guess they have in mind for the mechanism when they pass them? What facts or evidence might lead them to think this mechanism will be effective?
Except I don't buy that they actually would cause that. You say people will get disenfranchised. Yet in order for that to be true they must also be unemployed and a ton of other things, and my guess is that someone who that applies to probably isn't going to be voting anyway as they have much bigger problems.
You need for people to have been voting who no longer will be able to vote for claims of disenfranchisement to be true.
Irony here is that people who don't like the idea of voted ID are usually the same people who want massively invasive background checks for gun ownership.
Despite what you might think, there aren't too many poor people with guns--or at least not necessarily legally purchased guns. You might have some heirloom guns that people don't have licenses for or older folks that have firearms but no driver's license.
What you need to understand about these voter ID laws? They're not strictly "You need ID to vote". When laws are passed, they often have other things folded into the bill.
Here in NC, Voter ID laws also removed the following:
Preregistration for teenagers who were coming up on their 18th birthday done at your high school, during school hours. We did that twice a year--once during the fall and once during the spring. That's how I was registered to vote by filling out the paperwork during my junior year of high school before school let out for the summer as I have a summer birthday and turned 18 by the time the November elections came through.
Reduction or removal of early voting sites. There was a lot of discussion when this happened here in NC as African-American churches tended to use the church vans(used for community outreach programs, events, etc) to go and pick up elderly members of their congregations to take them to vote on Sundays before or after church. A lot of elderly people either do not drive or are ineligible to obtain a driver's license because of poor eyesight, hearing, or medical conditions like Alzheimer's.
Not present in the bill but a part of the current suit against NC by the NAACP is the reduction of operating hours and locations of the NC DMV and a reduction of locations that offer the "state issued ID cards" which are considered valid for voting purposes as an alternative to driver's licenses.
Those sound like far more serious issues. I understand ID being required but if the cards are hard to get then that causes problems.
Pre-registration sounds like a good scheme. Was there a rationale for stopping that?
None that made any sense. There were some claims about it being something that "students can do on their own time; they're at school to learn".
Early voting sites allowed you to bring your church's infirm to vote on the Sunday before polls opened officially? That sounds weird.
Early voting sites were open to everyone who was eligible to vote, not just churches. It was a smart way to ensure that you didn't have absurdly long lines on voting day or that people who might not be able to get off work or out of school to vote would still be able to.
Grey Templar wrote: Except I don't buy that they actually would cause that. You say people will get disenfranchised. Yet in order for that to be true they must also be unemployed and a ton of other things, and my guess is that someone who that applies to probably isn't going to be voting anyway as they have much bigger problems.
You need for people to have been voting who no longer will be able to vote for claims of disenfranchisement to be true.
Irony here is that people who don't like the idea of voted ID are usually the same people who want massively invasive background checks for gun ownership.
As the person who posted this topic, I'd disagree. Because I have no real opinion on the matter of gun laws at this point.
jhe90 wrote: You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.
What makes voting special. ?
Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess
literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle
I can definitely see why they ended the program that Kan is referring to. Young voters tend to swing Democrat, so of course Republican-controlled Raleigh would make it more difficult to get them registered to vote.
Voter ID laws are the sort of public policy proposal that's just laughably dumb. It's smart politics, as there's a clear benefit to the GOP to enact these laws, but in terms of actually benefiting the state or the people, they're just awful.
First off, the benefit is negligible. Every study conducted by every group that's looked into voter fraud finds it to be essentially non-existent. I suppose you can try to spin "it increases faith in the legitimacy of elections," but so would simply telling people that voter fraud is almost undetectable, no?
Second off, the consequence is pretty notable. As Sebster pointed out, 11% of the population doesn't currently have state issued ID, for a variety of reasons. I don't know how many of them vote, but I'm guessing there are more people that otherwise would vote, but don't have ID, than there are people that commit voter fraud.
At it's base, democracy is about rule by the people, and the mechanism for that is voting for representatives and executives. From a big picture perspective, the goal of a democracy should be to increase the number of voters. The reality is that hardly any voters are what you'd call informed. White, black, rich, poor, highly educated, or illiterate: most people are voting, even for higher office, for pretty tenuous reasons. However, there is something about the "wisdom of crowds," where biases and tribal voting offset in the mix, and something approaching a consensus emerges.
Voter ID laws aren't racist, but they definitely put a thumb on the scale for the GOP, because people without ID are overwhelmingly likely to be one or more of the following: poor, an immigrant, a minority, or disabled - all groups that tend to vote democrat.
I can see why this plays well. It's a classic call to fear, followed by the promise of law and order. It involves getting to feel smugly superior to those that do not drive or work legally. It's a good tactic.
whembly wrote: You guys do know that in 2000, Bush narrowly won Florida by 537 votes... right?
Voter fraud may seem like a small issue, but keep in mind that it could "swing" an entire election if the votes are close.
Every single voter who wants to vote should prove that they're doing so legally.
At the end of the day, it's sad that this is a partisan issue, rather than defining the framework of meaningful voting practices.
There is no evidence that in person voter fraud (the kind voter ID laws would prevent) is even as common as 500 times in an election though!
The real problem is in people registered that shouldn't be, due to either residency in another state, lack of citizenship, or death. That's at least a tangible and real problem, and while I feel the efforts to clean that up is equally partisan, I think that providing some proof of citizenship isn't out of line when registering to vote.
Voter ID laws are designed to prevent the achingly uncommon practice of voter impersonation, which even the right wing news forums I browsed couldn't come up with more than isolated instances.
whembly wrote: You guys do know that in 2000, Bush narrowly won Florida by 537 votes... right?
Voter fraud may seem like a small issue, but keep in mind that it could "swing" an entire election if the votes are close.
Every single voter who wants to vote should prove that they're doing so legally.
At the end of the day, it's sad that this is a partisan issue, rather than defining the framework of meaningful voting practices.
There is no evidence that in person voter fraud (the kind voter ID laws would prevent) is even as common as 500 times in an election though!
The real problem is in people registered that shouldn't be, due to either residency in another state, lack of citizenship, or death. That's at least a tangible and real problem, and while I feel the efforts to clean that up is equally partisan, I think that providing some proof of citizenship isn't out of line when registering to vote.
Voter ID laws are designed to prevent the achingly uncommon practice of voter impersonation, which even the right wing news forums I browsed couldn't come up with more than isolated instances.
Sure... I think that's largely under reported that most of the voter fraud occurs at local level (state reps, mayors, etc...).
Also, in most instances Voter ID laws (ie, that Indiana one) does include "scrubbing" the voter registration rolls.
Once such scrubbing is completed, then ensuring that you are who you say you are isn't a burden at all if you want to vote.
That's like saying that buying a cinema ticket isn't a burden if you want to go to the cinema.
Back on topic, the ironic thing is that Voter ID laws might have the perverse effect of increasing the chance of getting away with voter impersonation.
This is because impersonation is most frequently discovered by someone arriving to vote and finding "they have already voted" i.e. someone stole their voter identity and voted earlier.
By discouraging registration and presentation at the polling station -- which we know from empirical experience to be a genuine effect of Voter ID laws -- a larger pool of easily impersonable voters is created.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on topic, the ironic thing is that Voter ID laws might have the perverse effect of increasing the chance of getting away with voter impersonation.
This is because impersonation is most frequently discovered by someone arriving to vote and finding "they have already voted" i.e. someone stole their voter identity and voted earlier.
By discouraging registration and presentation at the polling station -- which we know from empirical experience to be a genuine effect of Voter ID laws -- a larger pool of easily impersonable voters is created.
I don't know about all that, but I know that these laws have almost nothing to do with preventing misrepresentation.
jhe90 wrote: You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.
What makes voting special. ?
Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess
literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...
How is does the US Constitution matter in this case when it is just a few states and not the country as a whole that are doing there best to solve a non-existent problem while hurting those who vote for their political enemies? Do we really think it is a coincidence that these laws are brought up by Republicans and hurt Democrats the most?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...
Expect your list does nothing of the sort, but go ahead and keep pretending that it does.
Purchasing a firearm....
I will say to that though, that it has been federally accepted by the people that there should be some limits to firearm ownership, and as such the entire country has opted for the filling out of the 4473 (or whatever form number it is) for the NICS background check, and the showing of ID. In this particular case, showing ID isn't the impediment to owning a firearm, it's the background check.
I think that pretty much any list that includes more than voting and firearms as "constitutionally protected rights" does go into pretend land.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...
Expect your list does nothing of the sort, but go ahead and keep pretending that it does.
Purchasing a firearm....
I will say to that though, that it has been federally accepted by the people that there should be some limits to firearm ownership, and as such the entire country has opted for the filling out of the 4473 (or whatever form number it is) for the NICS background check, and the showing of ID. In this particular case, showing ID isn't the impediment to owning a firearm, it's the background check.
I think that pretty much any list that includes more than voting and firearms as "constitutionally protected rights" does go into pretend land.
Glad that someone was paying attention, I thought it was too obvious but evidently not. Also the organizing of a demonstration (First Amendment) may be considered a Constitutional right.
Ahtman wrote: How is does the US Constitution matter in this case when it is just a few states and not the country as a whole that are doing there best to solve a non-existent problem while hurting those who vote for their political enemies? Do we really think it is a coincidence that these laws are brought up by Republicans and hurt Democrats the most?
In the post I was responding to, Jhe asked what the difference was between voting and anything else that requires ID, specifically driving. I mentioned voting is a right enshrined in the constitution in like, 5 places along with innumerable other statutes, whereas driving isn't even a right at all.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: And again, you don't need an ID to buy a gun. I've bought one without before.
But in considering how smart you are, I'm sure you knew that already.
I wouldn't make that assumption. I've seen vigorous arguments on the idea from allegedly smart people pretending you can't make a person to person gun sale without ID or a background check despite the fact that you clearly can in many states.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For anyone pursuing the disenfranchises minorities/racism angle;
What you've given is a great big long list of things where fraud would be incredibly common if ID wasn't required. You've then compared it to something where fraud is incredibly rare, even without any ID requirements.
And it never occurred to why those two might be very different things.
Anyhow, 11%. Reality vs common sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Except I don't buy that they actually would cause that. You say people will get disenfranchised. Yet in order for that to be true they must also be unemployed and a ton of other things, and my guess is that someone who that applies to probably isn't going to be voting anyway as they have much bigger problems.
Wow. And here's an argument that its okay to disenfranchise people because they probably wouldn't vote anyway. Something that ridiculous would be funny, but it's an attitude that I suspect is very common and that makes it very scary.
If there was a fraud issue then that'd be worth addressing, but there isn't and so the only thing that matters is getting as many people as possible in the ballot box every election. But look at this thread. It's fething terrible.
jhe90 wrote: You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.
What makes voting special. ?
Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess
literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...
Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.
n0t_u wrote: I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?
The issue is that compelling people to do this addresses a problem that basically doesn't exist, voter impersonation, and has been found to disenfranchise a proportion of the population who for one or another reason have difficulty in obtaining the necessary ID.
n0t_u wrote: I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?
In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities. Additionally, which you may or may not know, the US has a long and sordid history of restricting and denying voting rights to minority populations for racist reasons, as a result of which, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I mention this because this is a game this country has played for a long, long time.
Anyway, many people do not have valid photo ID in the US for a variety of reasons, such as only working off the books, having their license lapsed from a decade ago because they don't drive anymore, never having gotten a license because they don't own a car, etc etc etc. The pool of people who tend to lack valid photo ID isn't a even distribution, demographically - it includes more poor people, more ethnic minorities, and so on, which also tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. As a result, the GOP has pursued a strategy of passing laws requiring valid photo ID to actually vote, because this will tend to depress a small percentage of the population that can legally vote, tends not to vote republican, and doesn't have a voter ID.
Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.
n0t_u wrote: I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?
In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities. Additionally, which you may or may not know, the US has a long and sordid history of restricting and denying voting rights to minority populations for racist reasons, as a result of which, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I mention this because this is a game this country has played for a long, long time.
Anyway, many people do not have valid photo ID in the US for a variety of reasons, such as only working off the books, having their license lapsed from a decade ago because they don't drive anymore, never having gotten a license because they don't own a car, etc etc etc. The pool of people who tend to lack valid photo ID isn't a even distribution, demographically - it includes more poor people, more ethnic minorities, and so on, which also tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. As a result, the GOP has pursued a strategy of passing laws requiring valid photo ID to actually vote, because this will tend to depress a small percentage of the population that can legally vote, tends not to vote republican, and doesn't have a voter ID.
Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.
I see so the move would be to hide voting behind a paywall of people who would be able to have the ID?
n0t_u wrote: I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?
In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities. Additionally, which you may or may not know, the US has a long and sordid history of restricting and denying voting rights to minority populations for racist reasons, as a result of which, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. I mention this because this is a game this country has played for a long, long time.
Anyway, many people do not have valid photo ID in the US for a variety of reasons, such as only working off the books, having their license lapsed from a decade ago because they don't drive anymore, never having gotten a license because they don't own a car, etc etc etc. The pool of people who tend to lack valid photo ID isn't a even distribution, demographically - it includes more poor people, more ethnic minorities, and so on, which also tend to vote more Democratic than Republican. As a result, the GOP has pursued a strategy of passing laws requiring valid photo ID to actually vote, because this will tend to depress a small percentage of the population that can legally vote, tends not to vote republican, and doesn't have a voter ID.
Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.
I see so the move would be to hide voting behind a paywall of people who would be able to have the ID?
n0t_u wrote: I see so the move would be to hide voting behind a paywall of people who would be able to have the ID?
Paywall is a bit of a strong way to put it, but yes, establishing obstacles for those voters is the goal. Voter turnout in the US isn't very good, and there are some races that have been so close that just keeping a tiny fraction of voters from showing up would easily swing it.
n0t_u wrote: I don't get this. Is the issue simply they need to provide ID when they vote instead of just voting?
In the US, you register to vote when you turn 18. Thereafter, you get a voter registration card showing you where your polling place is, and then you show up to vote thereafter. At the actual polls, you say who you are, they check you off a list, and then you vote. You do not have to show a photo ID for this process. In the US, you are not required to have ID the way you are in other countries, although you will need ID for many activities.
Anyway, we have a thread on this every few months, where otherwise bright people pretend to be complete fething idiots and pretend that this isn't an organized strategy, and that it isn't for the purposes above, and that what's the big deal anyway, and so on and so forth, because feigned obtuseness is a valuable tool for scoring points for your team.
This essentially is the same system as the UK uses. Like the USA and Japan, there is no national ID card system, so there is no reason for anyone to have a photo ID document, For decades there would have been no way of validating people's identities at the polling station, but it hasn't mattered. Poll fraud started to become a problem when the law on postal voting was changed a few years ago.
(Absentee ballots are the main source of voter fraud in the USA too.)
It's only in the past 10 years or so that UK driving licences have had to feature a photo, and of course not everyone has a driving licence. Even if you do, you only have to change it when you move house.
I don't think feigned obtuseness scores any real points. If you oppose the concept, you either think the people actually are stupid, or that they are liars.
In either case, it's a good reason not to take any proper notice of their arguments. I think it's more of a self-validation strategy, preaching to the converted if you will.
jhe90 wrote: You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.
What makes voting special. ?
Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess
literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...
Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.
Unemployment;
http://www.wikihow.com/Apply-for-Unemployment-in-Illinois "Social Security Number (SSN) and name, as it appears on your SSN card.
The SSNs of any dependents you are claiming.
Employer's name, mailing address, phone numbers, employment dates, and separation reason for all the employers you worked for in the past 18 months.
If you are not a U.S. citizen, your Alien Registration Information.
If you have worked since the Sunday of the week of your application, the amount of gross wages (amount earned before any deductions) earned in that week—including lodging, meals, or earned compensation of any form.
If you are a recently separated veteran, bring in the Member 4 Copy of DD form 214/215.
In addition to the above, if you are filing in person you must bring 2 forms of identification—at least one of which includes your Social Security Number."
Renting
http://ohmyapt.apartmentratings.com/required-documents-for-renting-an-apartment.html "The required documentation you’ll need to present when renting an apartment can vary from city to city. It can also depend on whether you’re renting from an individual property owner, or from an apartment complex owned by a corporation or real estate company. Whatever the situation is, you’ll need to show at least some of the following documents when renting an apartment.
Your Driver’s License
Presenting your driver’s license allows a property owner to do several things. He or she can verify your identity with it. Your driver’s license can also be used to run a credit check. Potential landlords want to know if you’re a person who can be trusted to pay their bills (specifically their rent) on time. Your driver’s license will also be used as part of a background check. Some property owners will check to see if you have a criminal history, or if you’re a registered sex offender.
If you don’t have a driver’s license, another form of photo ID will be required, such as a passport or military ID, but other documents could then be required in order to run a credit check.
Your Social Security Number
Be very careful when giving out your social security number. Many landlords will tell you that this number is required for a rental application, but it’s not required by law. Your driver’s license number is sufficient for someone to run a background or credit check on you. If you have any doubts about a property manager or potential landlord, it’s best to not provide this. You wouldn’t want to have your identity stolen while applying to rent an apartment."
SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/ “The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact.
You'll then need to go to a license branch to transfer the title into your name and register the car. Be sure to take:
The signed vehicle title.
The bill of sale from the seller OR a receipt for your purchase, showing how much you paid for it.
Proof of car insurance for the vehicle.
Verification of your Social Security number."
In every case you objected to your identity is eligible to be verified. The only one you have an arguable case on is purchasing a cell phone as for a contract phone an ID is required. In all other cases you are mistaking anecdotes for evidence.
That feeling when you have to pull info from 15 different states to try and make fetch happen.
Also, LOL at using a site for SNAP (food stamps) which explicitly says you don't need photo ID, to "prove you need photo ID to get food stamps".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/ “The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact..
Polonius wrote: Is it worth bringing up that there has historically been profound republican opposition to any sort of national ID standards?
I can't speak for everyone in the party, but I see it as pointless.
State driver's licenses, State I.D. cards, and Military I.D.s are sufficient for anything requiring a photo I.D. to confirm identity, And pretty much universally accepted for such across the 50 States.
Grey Templar wrote: Except I don't buy that they actually would cause that. You say people will get disenfranchised. Yet in order for that to be true they must also be unemployed and a ton of other things, and my guess is that someone who that applies to probably isn't going to be voting anyway as they have much bigger problems.
Wow. And here's an argument that its okay to disenfranchise people because they probably wouldn't vote anyway. Something that ridiculous would be funny, but it's an attitude that I suspect is very common and that makes it very scary.
If there was a fraud issue then that'd be worth addressing, but there isn't and so the only thing that matters is getting as many people as possible in the ballot box every election. But look at this thread. It's fething terrible.
That's the argument, that it will keep people from voting. Yet I have yet to see anything that shows that to be the case. I doubt very much that this mythical person who cannot afford an ID, does not have an ID, and never will have an ID, but who mysteriously is also a registered voter, actually exists.
I'm not saying its ok, I just don't buy the line that it actually will have an effect on people who have been voting but no longer would be able to. After all the argument is that it will prevent Democratic voters from voting, but they would have to have been voting in the first place for that to be true.
We do have a voting problem in this country, but adding an ID requirement wouldn't do anything to make it worse or better. It would just be a wash.
Grey Templar wrote: That's the argument, that it will keep people from voting. Yet I have yet to see anything that shows that to be the case. I doubt very much that this mythical person who cannot afford an ID, does not have an ID, and never will have an ID, but who mysteriously is also a registered voter, actually exists.
The GAO measured the impact of voter ID laws passed in Kansas and Tennessee, and found voter attendance was down about 2% when compared to other states without voter ID laws. And you better believe the impact was disproportionate among minorities. So there you go, now you've seen something to establish that people really are dissuaded from the ballot over ID laws'.
11% of people don't have sufficient ID, and where these laws have been passed the voting numbers have dropped about 2%. And this was all to 'solve' a problem of voter fraud that occurs in the low double digits across a country that casts 100 million votes.
Voter fraud is not a problem in the US. Voter turnout is. To fix the problem you don't have, you're making the problem you do have worse. It's an incredible nonsense, and it only makes sense once you realise that people pushing these reforms do not give one gak about improving democracy, just about improving their odds in the next election.
I think the number of people that would vote, but don't have ID, is likely pretty small, albiet is measurable. The number of instances of voter impersonation rounds down to zero.
No matter how relatively small the consequences of a law are, when they are substantially greater than the harm they prevent, that's a bad law.
State driver's licenses, State I.D. cards, and Military I.D.s are sufficient for anything requiring a photo I.D. to confirm identity, And pretty much universally accepted for such across the 50 States.
I've been denied service, repeatedly, for presenting my State ID as a means of establishing my age to purchase age limited products or enter age limited establishments; even in the State which issued the ID. Additionally, when working as a bouncer at a bar in Minnesota, I was instructed to deny entry to any person that did not have a valid driver's license and was explicitly told not to accept State IDs. State IDs are not well respected forms of identification.
Polonius wrote: Is it worth bringing up that there has historically been profound republican opposition to any sort of national ID standards?
I can't speak for everyone in the party, but I see it as pointless.
State driver's licenses, State I.D. cards, and Military I.D.s are sufficient for anything requiring a photo I.D. to confirm identity, And pretty much universally accepted for such across the 50 States.
Well, except for the 30 some odd states that have driver's licenses not up to "compliance" with TSA, and thus making people from around 30 states unable to fly using a DL as their preferred ID (this also means that student ID, employer ID, etc. is more often than not, ineligible as well)
edit: I am talking about their much maligned "REAL ID" program... under it, starting last month, 6 states' ID cards were outright unusable, while most of the others up to gate personnel, still others were OK for domestic travel, but not international, and finally like 6 or 7 or so were completely "OK" and valid for domestic and international flights (remember we don't actually have to show passport until we arrive in the foreign country of destination, and when we get back)
I do find it ironic that there's one situation that nearly EVERY right leaning person wishes would come true, and it could be fixed with a simple law, or addendum, or even a national ID card program: nearly every Republican, Libertarian, etc. wants their conceal carry permits to be nationally reciprocated the same way their marriage licenses are.
jhe90 wrote: You need legal id for doing many things from driving a car, renting a house, buying a gun or such.
What makes voting special. ?
Something about the constitution or some such rubbish i guess
literally every thread ever on this topic hits exactly the same beats, at this point maybe Lego can just write a script to automate it and save us a lot of hassle
Yet my list gave examples of Constitutionally protected rights that do require photo ID...
Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.
Unemployment;
http://www.wikihow.com/Apply-for-Unemployment-in-Illinois "Social Security Number (SSN) and name, as it appears on your SSN card.
The SSNs of any dependents you are claiming.
Employer's name, mailing address, phone numbers, employment dates, and separation reason for all the employers you worked for in the past 18 months.
If you are not a U.S. citizen, your Alien Registration Information.
If you have worked since the Sunday of the week of your application, the amount of gross wages (amount earned before any deductions) earned in that week—including lodging, meals, or earned compensation of any form.
If you are a recently separated veteran, bring in the Member 4 Copy of DD form 214/215.
In addition to the above, if you are filing in person you must bring 2 forms of identification—at least one of which includes your Social Security Number."
Fun Fact: I live in Illinois and I am on unemployment right now. I never had to show them ID because I did it all over the phone. So that is super wrong.
Ouze wrote: That feeling when you have to pull info from 15 different states to try and make fetch happen.
Also, LOL at using a site for SNAP (food stamps) which explicitly says you don't need photo ID, to "prove you need photo ID to get food stamps".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/ “The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact..
Well done.
That is just all kinds of amazing. It says in the first line of the link you do not need photo ID.
Ouze wrote: That feeling when you have to pull info from 15 different states to try and make fetch happen.
That feeling when you pull in data from a number of States to show that it is a widespread phenomenon. But please continue to try and claim otherwise.
Ouze wrote: Also, LOL at using a site for SNAP (food stamps) which explicitly says you don't need photo ID, to "prove you need photo ID to get food stamps".
Dreadclaw69 wrote: SNAP (Food stamps)
http://www.myreporter.com/2013/09/is-a-photo-id-required-when-applying-for-welfare-including-food-stamps/ “The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker is required to verify your identity. 7 CFR 273.2(f). There are many ways, however, that you may verify your identity. A photo ID is only one way. You should not be denied SNAP/Food Stamps simply because you do not have a photo ID. To prove who you are, you can use such things as a work or school ID, an ID for health benefits, an ID from another social services program such as TANF, wage stubs, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker can also verify your identity by calling a “collateral contact” who can confirm you who are. Shelter workers and employers are examples of possible collateral contacts. If you have no paper documentation of who you are, you should ask the SNAP/Food Stamp caseworker to call a collateral contact..
Well done.
And you ignored the point where other posters then shifted the standard to "legal id", or just "ID'. Congratulations on keeping up.
Well done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Fun Fact: I live in Illinois and I am on unemployment right now. I never had to show them ID because I did it all over the phone. So that is super wrong.
Illinois may still require ID.
https://benefits.ides.illinois.gov/File4UI/Benefits/profile/createRegistrationStart.do "In order to complete the registration process you must have a valid Driver's License or a State ID Card. If you do not have either of these two identifications, Please contact the Illinois Department of Employment Security's Claimant Services Center at (800) 244-5631 FREE for further assistance."
You are super wrong. Your claims lack what we call, truth. Please stop continuing to confuse anecdotes with evidence.
Dreadwinter wrote: That is just all kinds of amazing. It says in the first line of the link you do not need photo ID.
Yet just prior to this you shifted that standard...
Dreadwinter wrote: Your list is also incorrect on a ton of those things. I am currently on Unemployment and getting Food Stamps, I never had to show my ID. I rent the place I live at, never had to show an ID. Bought a car, never had to show an ID. Bought a cell phone, never had to show an ID. Bought an M Rated Video Game, never had to show an ID.
Curious that you changed the standard, and now complain that I provided evidence which meets this new standard
There were some claims about it being something that "students can do on their own time; they're at school to learn".
