Voter ID Issue Query

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action. What else do you think is meant by the Constitution as regards rights?

So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least

INdeed. I look forward to just walkinginto Academy under the new Manchu doctrine, pulling a full auto MG 42 off the shelf and paying cash without so much as a hidy ho.

**Alfndrate**

Breotan wrote:
I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.

Actually saying that you must have a form of identification to vote and then not providing free IDs or other means to prove identity is in some cases construed as a poll tax, and the states that do have free IDs for these things often don't take into account the cost to obtain the documents needed to get the free ID.

**Breotan**

Alfndrate wrote:
Breotan wrote:
I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.
Actually saying that you must have a form of identification to vote and then not providing free IDs or other means to prove identity is in some cases construed as a poll tax, and the states that do have free IDs for these things often don't take into account the cost to obtain the documents needed to get the free ID.

I'd be quite comfortable with a dollar increase in the Drivers License fee to help offset costs.

**Frazzled**

I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.

I'm ok with that.

**reds8n**

Breotan wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections.
I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html

After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said. Indeed, the Florida Republican Party imposed a host of policies, from longer ballots to fewer precincts in minority areas, meant to discourage voting. And it worked. According to one study, as many as 49,000 people were discouraged from voting in November 2012 as a result of long lines and other obstacles.

**Frazzled**

That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

**d-usa**

I had a good write-up in the NC thread that showed the voting patterns of every single group impacted by the changes that were made to their voting laws. It was pretty telling.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly I'm not a Republican

I know, I know. You're a talking wiener dog.

Tell me another one.

**Alfndrate**

Frazzled wrote:
That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

The article is a little... weird. The title of it says voter id laws are targeting democratic voters, but the quotes say they want to quash early voting.

I too am okay with early voting, not everyone can make it to the polls on Election Tuesday. But I also remember D's post in the NC thread, it is telling, though I'm still not for no identification at the polls, but I won't get into it since I've stated it before.

**Manchu**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action.
So free ID is now a bad thing?

(1) That's a non sequitur
(2) "Free ID" is a marketing term rather than a literal term

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
The goal of these laws is for republicans to win more elections.
I keep seeing people make this type of statement. The problem is that there is a complete and total lack of evidence that voter ID would result in increased republican votes or decreased democrat votes.

Nobody, other than the Republicans supporting it, claimed it was a great strategy.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
That wasn't really directed at you, I know that you have not made a claim to that effect in this thread.

Gotcha. I took it as directed at me because it followed my quote, so thanks for the clarification

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Interestingly I'm not a Republican
I know, I know. You're a talking wiener dog.

Tell me another one.

Hey you asked:
Why did the cowboy adopt a wiener dog?
Hw wanted to get a long little doggie!

**Alfndrate**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.

This is one of the reasons why Ohio House Representative Nutjob Becker's bills are terrible. I think he's got a 4th bill to feth with everything. I've written my representative urging her to vote against this trash. She's a democrat, so she'll probably listen.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.

yes you're briliant at restating the obvious. The article talked about early voting. I didn't see anything about voter ID. Unless of course Democrats employ illegal voters...

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Even one red cent is too much to pay, whether in cash or time away from work or in any other form, to access your constitutionally guaranteed rights absent some actual threat to those self same rights requiring government action.
So free ID is now a bad thing?
(1) That's a non sequitur
(2) "Free ID" is a marketing term rather than a literal term

1.) You're objecting to paying "one red cent" for ID, but you don't think that it follows to ask if providing ID free is a bad idea? You're right, that follows in no way, shape, or form.....
2.) So the ID is not being provided free of charge to the applicant?

**Alfndrate**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
2.) So the ID is not being provided free of charge to the applicant?

Manchu does have a point that "Free ID" isn't free... Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, if your state does provide free IDs, you generally have to have documents to prove identity that can cost money (SS card, birth certificate, etc...) to get the free documents. And then there is the taking off of work, which if you've got a crappy job you generally can't take off and you don't work and don't get paid.

There will almost always be some cost associated with getting an ID, even if they are free.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
I had a good write-up in the NC thread that showed the voting patterns of every single group impacted by the changes that were made to their voting laws. It was pretty telling.

You mean this one (and the replies to it)?

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Yeah, totally fair bill that doesn't target any particular voters at all. Let's see areas of the bill line up with voter demographics based on 2012 elections.

-People older than 70 can use their expired IDs to vote
(56% of people over 65 voted for Romney).
Yeah, and I've seen it argued that it's bad because it makes it hard for old people to get their ID's, so now it's bad because old people don't need to get new ID's?

-Making it hard for young people to vote:
Eliminating pre-registration.
Not allowing Student IDs.
(60% of people under 29 voted for Obama)
I would like to find a copy of the actual bill before anymore judgement is passed on this. Michigan doesn't allow pre-registration either, but it still allows for those who turn 18 by the date of the election to register 30 days before hand.

-Eliminating voting options historically used by Democrats
-Cut early voting by a week
(Early votes cast in North Carolina were: Dem 47.6%, Rep 31.5%, None/Other 20.9%)
Cost saving measure, as explained. Voter turn out, even with early voting, was significantly lower then several previous elections, so in days of tight budgets it tends to make sense, but hey tightening the belt is another way of targetting people who usually vote dem anyways, right? The same amount of time is allowed for early voting, it is just offered in a shorter period of time, freeing up more resources.

-Eliminate voting options historically used by African Americans
-Get rid of Sunday early voting (utilized by African-American Churches churches)
(93% of African Americans voted for Obama)
See above

-Making it harder for poor people to vote
-Cutting early voting down to one site per county (making it hard for transportation (at least everybody can jump on the church bus...oh wait) and resulting in much longer lines which makes it harder for people who can't get off work)
-Not providing free IDs.
(60% of people who make less than $50,000 voted for Obama)
Your no free ID thing is BS. State Photo ID (not drivers license, and still acceptable under the law) is free, and will remain free.

-Eliminated Straight Party Voting
(55.54% of all straight party tickets cast were for Democrats)
God forbid people have to put a few extra check marks down. If their to lazy to do this, then they aren't going to put in the effort to vote anyways.

-Left absentee voting intact.
(66% of absentee votes were cast for Romney)
And? How else are folks who are in military supposed to vote?

But it's okay, this bill is totally legit and targets legitimate voter fraud (without showing evidence of voter fraud and without anybody being able to explain how it actually combats voter fraud) and has nothing to do with the actual statistics showing that it impacts Democrats more than Republicans.

Source dump:

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=69
http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/42923/114645/Web01/en/summary.html
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

Also from the same thread;

whembly wrote:

What's funny is that the following states has this:
Illinois – “Any time a voter uses Early Voting, the voter must present a government-issued photo ID.” An ID with your name and address is required. The IDs are not required to feature a photograph of the elector.[12] “If you register by mail, you must vote in person the first time, either at the polling place, in-person absentee or early voting, unless you submit with your mail-in registration form your driver license number or state ID number, the last four digits of your social security number, or one of the forms of ID listed below.”[13]

Delaware – Valid voter ID includes a photo ID, utility bill, paycheck or any other government document with your name and address on it.

Hawaii – In order to vote, electors must present valid photo ID with a signature. Additionally, voters will be asked to sign a poll book to record that they voted at the polling place. Voter Registration Notice is NOT an acceptable form of identification.

California – SB1016 (effective January 1, 2006) requires voters to provide their driver’s license number or state identification number. If they do not have either, they may use the last four digits of their social security card. If they also do not have a social security card number, the state will assign a unique number which may be used for voting purposes.

These states don't have problems electing their politicians (mostly, Democrats).

As to NC... I realize it's a big change, but ya'll have 2 years to get the required ID. That's not a burden imo.

Oh look, voter ID is all fine and well in Democrat majority states

And for all those crying racism, and disenfranchisement of minorities - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/lessons-from-the-voter-id-experience-in-georgia

Georgia’s experience with minority voters also directly refutes the claims that voter ID laws somehow prevent racial minorities from voting. Keep in mind that Georgia’s photo ID requirement was not in place in the 2004 presidential election or the 2006 mid-term congressional elections. The law was first effective in the 2008 presidential election and the 2010 congressional elections, although Georgia has actually had at least 40 state and federal elections since September 2007 when the law became effective, not including municipal and county elections. More than 15 million votes have been cast in those elections.
According to the Secretary of State, the turnout of black and Hispanic voters has been as follows:
Latino Percentage Increase 140%
Black Percentage Increase 42%
White Percentage Increase 8%

The increase in turnout of both Hispanics and blacks in the 2008 presidential election after the voter ID law became effective is quite remarkable, particularly given the unproven and totally speculative claims of the Justice Department that the voter ID requirements of Texas and South Carolina will somehow have a discriminatory impact on Hispanic and black voters.[7] In fact, Georgia had the largest turnout of minority voters in its history.
Georgia had the same exemplary experience in the 2010 congressional election
Latino Percentage Increase 66.5 %
Black Percentage Increase 44.2%
White Percentage Increase 11.7%

The large increase in turnout of Hispanic and black voters in the 2008 and 2010 federal elections far outpaced the growth rate of those populations in Georgia over a 10-year period. The U.S. Census reports that from 2000 to 2010, the Hispanic population in the state grew 96.1 percent while the black population grew by only 25.6 percent.[9]
A Common-Sense Reform
In both federal elections held in Georgia since its voter ID became effective, the increase in turnout of Hispanic and black voters dwarfed the increase in turnout of white voters. As shown by these data—as well as the fact that federal and state courts in Georgia dismissed lawsuits filed against the Georgia voter ID law that had claimed it was both unconstitutional and discriminatory—voter ID requirements can be easily met by almost all voters and do not have a discriminatory or disparate impact on racial minorities. Georgia’s experience also shows that the number of voters who do not already have an acceptable photo ID is very small.
Requiring photo IDs is a common-sense election reform. The latest Rasmussen polling shows that it is supported by 72 percent of likely voters.[10] The Justice Department and other outspoken opponents of voter ID should stop standing in the way and allow states to implement reasonable and demonstrably nondiscriminatory laws that are intended to ensure the integrity and security of the election process.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He is a former Commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and the former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.

Those poor, victimised, oppressed, disenfranchised minorities

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alfndrate wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
2.) So the ID is not being provided free of charge to the applicant?

Manchu does have a point that "Free ID" isn't free... Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, if your state does provide free IDs, you generally have to have documents to prove identity that can cost money (SS card, birth certificate, etc...) to get the free documents. And then there is the taking off of work, which if you've got a crappy job you generally can't take off and you don't work and don't get paid.

There will almost always be some cost associated with getting an ID, even if they are free.

And those documents for proof of ID are also provided free initially too, so unless you've lost them etc. there is no financial burden. Again, ID is used for so much in the US such as public assistance, job applications, credit applications, etc. - is asking for ID a tax on these also? And as far as the taking time off work that is a non-starter. If you say that you won't get a day off work in the next two years that matches the hours for the BMV please don't be offended if I'm a wee bit more than skeptical.

**Manchu**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You're objecting to paying "one red cent" for ID, but you don't think that it follows to ask if providing ID free is a bad idea? You're right, that follows in no way, shape, or form.....

Tsk tsk. You weren't asking a sincere question. It was just rhetorical. How do I know? You provided the answer:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least

That doesn't follow from what I posted.

Try to argue honestly at least.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And those documents for proof of ID are also provided free initially too, so unless you've lost them etc. there is no financial burden.

Why this is false has been explained to you many, many times. In fact, Alf did so in the post to which you are responding.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
That says early voting not voter ID.

I'm for a nice fat early voting period.

As has been said repeatedly, the "Voter ID law" that NC Republicans passed included deliberate cuts for early voting--including the "no more Sunday voting" under the claims of cost cutting.

yes you're briliant at restating the obvious. The article talked about early voting. I didn't see anything about voter ID. Unless of course Democrats employ illegal voters...

Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.

Republicans know that they cannot hit early voting or anything of that nature without rolling it into the voter ID bills.

**Forar**

Frazzled wrote:

I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.

I'm ok with that.

I would be as well, however it's effectively impossible to accomplish. If it's photo ID, they need to either show up in person (time off work, transportation costs and timing, etc) or submit a proper picture. Going to the local photo store for a pic for $10-25 or whatever might not seem like a lot, but as noted, we're talking about a lot of people, and for many of them, that amount will be hard to come by.

Being poor, being extremely poor, hell being homeless does not, as far as I'm aware, rescind ones right to vote in the US political system.

Also, as an aside from skimming this thread, what the hell do some of you guys do where you have to flash your ID 20 times a day? It's a blue moon that I have to bother presenting mine. Granted, living in a major metropolitan area and being able to walk to work may be part of that, but seriously, my health card and drivers licence are needed so rarely I could probably just leave them at home and be fine 360 days a year.

**Manchu**

Kanluwen wrote:
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.

This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.

"Get offa my lawn!"

**Easy E**

I leave for a day and this thread just blew up!

**Alfndrate**

Forar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

I'm all for Voter ID requirements. I am also for states that implement such requirements being required to provide ID cards for free. Otherwise it could be construed as a poll tax.

I'm ok with that.

I would be as well, however it's effectively impossible to accomplish. If it's photo ID, they need to either show up in person (time off work, transportation costs and timing, etc) or submit a proper picture. Going to the local photo store for a pic for $10-25 or whatever might not seem like a lot, but as noted, we're talking about a lot of people, and for many of them, that amount will be hard to come by.

The 'easiest' way for people to accomplish these free photos IDs is by going to the DMV or the USPS branch offices. Both of these places do photos for IDs already (DMV for driver's license and USPS branch office for passport). So you wouldn't have to pay to get your photo id at such a place, but those places already have you pay for the rest of the ID. But a 10 dollar headshot from the Sears Photocenter I don't think would be necessary.

But for these services, they'd have to be subsidized by something (most likely taxes). I'm very much in a similar boat on Breotan with this though, I wouldn't mind paying an extra dollar to offset costs.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You're objecting to paying "one red cent" for ID, but you don't think that it follows to ask if providing ID free is a bad idea? You're right, that follows in no way, shape, or form.....
Tsk tsk. You weren't asking a sincere question. It was just rhetorical. How do I know? You provided the answer:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So free ID is now a bad thing? Glad to hear that you aren't in favour of gun licenses, taxes, and other fees and other oversight or inconveniences to that Constitutional right at least
That doesn't follow from what I posted.

I was being sincere. The fact that I then tied it to another Constitutional right that does have ID requirements (thus showing a precedent for ID requirements on Constitutional rights) does not make it any less so..... unless you can't/won't address the point and are trying to obfuscate.

So to avoid anymore confusion on your part I'll sever the two points, and to prevent allegations of non-sequiturs - is providing free ID a bad thing?

Manchu wrote:
Try to argue honestly at least.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And those documents for proof of ID are also provided free initially too, so unless you've lost them etc. there is no financial burden.
Why this is false has been explained to you many, many times. In fact, Alf did so in the post to which you are responding.

You mean where Alf addressed my points, and I provided a counter argument that you ignored? Still, if all else fails try and claim that I'm arguing in bad faith

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Then you're not actually reading anything that people are saying.
This is Frazzled we're talking about. He's just here to post the dachshund pics, Kan.

"Get offa my lawn!"

Belittling others is beautifully polite, especially for a Mod.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alfndrate wrote:
The 'easiest' way for people to accomplish these free photos IDs is by going to the DMV or the USPS branch offices. Both of these places do photos for IDs already (DMV for driver's license and USPS branch office for passport). So you wouldn't have to pay to get your photo id at such a place, but those places already have you pay for the rest of the ID. But a 10 dollar headshot from the Sears Photocenter I don't think would be necessary.

BMVs in Indiana provide free ID on request, but it is either a free ID or a driver's license - you cannot carry both.

**Manchu**

Dreadclaw, you asked a plainly rhetorical question and then pretended it was sincere. Really, really weak. But we can go with it, sure:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So to avoid anymore confusion on your part I'll sever the two points, and to prevent allegations of non-sequiturs - is providing free ID a bad thing?

Not at all -- unless this "free" ID is being provided to create cover for unnecessary Voter ID laws.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You mean where Alf addressed my points, and I provided a counter argument that you ignored?

No, I meant where Alf made a point and you disregarded it. That's not a counterargument.

**Forar**

So the running gag that the DMV in the US counts as the ninth circle of hell is untrue?

Because that's what I've been led to believe.

**Captain Fantastic**

Why would anyone wait in huge lines, fill out redundant paperwork and waste time that could otherwise be spent watching Television or sleeping just to take a single meaningless vote away from the guy they don't like?

**Alfndrate**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
The 'easiest' way for people to accomplish these free photos IDs is by going to the DMV or the USPS branch offices. Both of these places do photos for IDs already (DMV for driver's license and USPS branch office for passport). So you wouldn't have to pay to get your photo id at such a place, but those places already have you pay for the rest of the ID. But a 10 dollar headshot from the Sears Photocenter I don't think would be necessary.

BMVs in Indiana provide free ID on request, but it is either a free ID or a driver's license - you cannot carry both.

But that is on a state by state basis, some states don't have them, and like I said earlier in the thread states that have photo ID laws for voting purposes must provide a free way to get such an ID because if you were to pay for it that would be a poll tax (which is bad, mkay?). To vote, your state requires a piece of identification that has 1) your photo 2) a name that conforms to the name on your voter registration (so if your name was Robert John Crew, it could be any number of variations of that name) 3) Cannot be expired, or expired sometime after the last general election 4) Issued by the State of Indian or the US Government.

yes your BMVs can and will provide free IDs for voting purposes, though the documentation on such things are a little unclear. The site says It seems that you need to use the same documentation to obtain a driver's license, which can be found here. And a lot of these documents had to be paid for at some point or another. Especially the 1st form of documentation you have to provide.

Spoiler:

The only thing that could be used is if you have an original US birth certificate, but hell I've never had a kid so idk if the parents have that added to their hospital costs. D, you just had a younin' did you have to pay for the lil one's birth certificate?

Forar wrote:
So the running gag that the DMV in the US counts as the ninth circle of hell is untrue?

Because that's what I've been led to believe.

No it still is, but if you go early enough in the morning it's merely purgatory.

**Dreadclaw69**

Manchu wrote:
Dreadclaw, you asked a plainly rhetorical question and then pretended it was sincere. Really, really weak. But we can go with it, sure:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So to avoid anymore confusion on your part I'll sever the two points, and to prevent allegations of non-sequiturs - is providing free ID a bad thing?
Not at all -- unless this "free" ID is being provided to create cover for unnecessary Voter ID laws.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You mean where Alf addressed my points, and I provided a counter argument that you ignored?
No, I meant where Alf made a point and you disregarded it. That's not a counterargument.

Arguing bad faith again Manchu when I stated that none was intended, and I attempted to clarify? Between belittling other community members who disagree with you, and casting aspersions on others who also disagree with you it almost looks like you're trying to bait for a reaction than engage in honest debate. Not the conduct I would expect of any community member, much less a moderator.

Are voting laws unnecessary in the Democrat states listed above? Are voting laws unnecessary in Georgia where the turn out of minorities increased? Are voting laws so unnecessary that there is a long list of countries that do have them, and that the US implement voter ID in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I disregarded no point of Alf's. He mentioned the cost of the documents, of getting time off work, of the hours of opening. I addressed all those points. You may not like the answer that was given, but that isn't the same as disregarding it