We don't need no stinkin IDs

[Mr. Fed]

Also, are you comfortable with making poll workers the gate-keepers of voting rights? Who watches the watchmen?

Have you ever voted at a polling station? Perhaps more pertinently, how on earth did you obtain your driver's license?

Polling stations are staffed by volunteers AFAIK... do they have some super powers to spot real ID's that I haven't heard about?

I love this argument: it's far too onerous for folks to get real IDs, but obviously quite easy for folks to get fake IDs.

Well, to be fair, I can drive to McArthur Park in 5 minutes or walk in 20 and get a complete set of fake ID for $75 bucks (up from $50 10 years ago) in about half an hour. Whereas every interaction with the government regarding my identification is a huge pain in the ass.

I even know what the ICE agents look like to avoid them.

[Enough]

The simple fact is that there's exactly one plausible reason to reject ID requirements for voting: to allow the possibility of fraud where needed.

Well, one plausible non-political argument, perhaps. But there's a strong political status-quo argument: ID requirements will benefit Republicans at the expense of Democrats, at least in the challenged locations.

As to fraud, I note that in arguments the Attorney General of Indiana was forced to concede that there was no record of any impersonation fraud whatsoever in his state. His argument was that the ID law was necessary to public confidence, not to counteract any actual and provable fraud.

From the reports on the Indiana law, in my opinion it's probably constitutional. But as I've said before, an inquiry into its constitutionality is by no means ridiculous, given the history of voting in this country.

I was going to post the bolded bit too. It seems odd to see this supported by folks who rally against passing window dressing laws just for the sake of it. I have yet to see anyone make a case that indicates spending public money implementing this sort of law will actually significantly lower voter fraud. It seems like a waste of our taxes when viewed through this lens. If this sort of voter fraud is a fantasy then why validate a myth? At the very least without presenting any evidence of a need for this law, we are encouraging more stupid laws we don't need that only manage to make some folk's lives more of a pain in the ass for no tangible benefits. On the other hand, I agree the law is probably constitutional. Here's an editorial from attorney-gate times that debunks some other cases of claimed voter fraud.

But the notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch.

[RunningMn9]

I'm having trouble understanding why it's a problem that you are required to show that you are who you say you are before you vote.

If you can't demonstrate that you are who you say you are - then we presume that you aren't who you say you are, and you can't vote. Seems reasonable to me.

If there is some widespread reason why Democrats find it difficult to demonstrate that they are who they say they are - maybe the Dems should look into resolving that.

I don't see why I should be allowed to show up to a polling place and vote as my neighbor, just so some people don't have to prove that they are who they say they are.

[Grundbegriff]

If there is some widespread reason why Democrats find it difficult to demonstrate that they are who they say they are - maybe the Dems should look into resolving that.

If access to the forms is a problem, then that can easily be solved through activism....

[Tareeq]

As to fraud, I note that in arguments the Attorney General of Indiana was forced to concede that there was no record of any impersonation fraud whatsoever in his state. His argument was that the ID law was necessary to public confidence, not to counteract any actual and provable fraud.

Nor could the plaintiffs find one Indiana voter willing to say that he or she had been disenfranchised by this law. Suit was filed in 2005.

I'm sure that the lack of such plaintiffs can be attributed to the climate of fear the law has created among the poor and voiceless of Indiana. A fear so pervasive that even the ACLU, with its thousands of on-call ready-made plaintiffs, couldn't find one soul willing to step forward.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

As to fraud, I note that in arguments the Attorney General of Indiana was forced to concede that there was no record of any impersonation fraud whatsoever in his state. His argument was that the ID law was necessary to public confidence, not to counteract any actual and provable fraud.

Nor could the plaintiffs find one Indiana voter willing to say that he or she had been disenfranchised by this law. Suit was filed in 2005.

Here are some people that claim to have been disenfranchised.

[Tareeq]

As I said, there is a climate of fear in Indiana, and of poor case preparation among Indiana advocates.

[Eightball]

I'm having trouble understanding why it's a problem that you are required to show that you are who you say you are before you vote.

If you can't demonstrate that you are who you say you are - then we presume that you aren't who you say you are, and you can't vote. Seems reasonable to me.

If there is some widespread reason why Democrats find it difficult to demonstrate that they are who they say they are - maybe the Dems should look into resolving that.

I don't see why I should be allowed to show up to a polling place and vote as my neighbor, just so some people don't have to prove that they are who they say they are.

I read this entire post...in the voice of Denny Green.

"They are who we thought they were."

[Enough]

Unless it's a vast conspiracy, I don't see how it can make a significant impact... if there were vast conspiracies to fraudulently swing elections, then there would be some evidence of such.

None dare call it conspiracy.

He was ahead of the media on the Joseph Wilson story, you know.

LOL indeed, but as you know none of his allegations have proved accurate. Just ask Larry Russell and the S. Dakota Republican Victory Program. Heck even nasty old state Republican icon Bill Ken.... errr Janklow called the repubs cheaters that year.

And I'm sure you also know South Dakota's Republican attorney general strongly rejected the affidavits Republican activists collected trying to prove voter fraud on the reservation in 2002 stating that the affidavits Republicans provided were falsehoods based on perjury and forgery.

[RunningMn9]

I read this entire post...in the voice of Denny Green.

"They are who we thought they were."

[Fireball]

If you can't demonstrate that you are who you say you are - then we presume that you aren't who you say you are, and you can't vote. Seems reasonable to me.

Many, many Americans cannot produce documentation to prove that they were born here. Many more Americans have no form of picture identification. These folks are mostly elderly, mostly minority. They don't drive or cash checks. Many live in group situations where they have no bills in their names. They are American citizens and have an inalienable right to vote. Yet you would presume that they are lying?

Tell me how an elderly African American woman who lives in Atlanta, a city where there are NO locations to get a drivers license issued, who was born before blacks were allowed to give birth in hospitals, and thus has NO birth certificate and has never had one, who lives in a low-rent apartment where utilities are bundled, and thus has no utility bills, proves that she is who she is? Would you have people in nursing homes be forced to be bused across town or even to other cities in order to get proper identification, when they've been voting all their lives?

This was THE big fight, prior to the fight over the Speaker, in the Texas Legislature. The Republicans cried on and on and on about how "illegals" were voting and had to be stopped -- but could not show evidence of that EVER happening in Texas. Meanwhile, the evidence of conservatives using voter laws to prevent minorities from voting is overwhelming.

Voting is an absolute right, the most important and most sacred of our rights, and any law that deals with voting must be designed so that it will not disenfranchise ANY legitimate voters.

States with these voter ID laws have seen measurable declines amongst voting rates in their African American, Hispanic and elderly communities. Precisely what the Republicans want. Coincidence, surely.

I don't see why I should be allowed to show up to a polling place and vote as my neighbor, just so some people don't have to prove that they are who they say they are.

You shouldn't. You should be required to bring your voter registration card, which is mailed to every registered voter every year, with you, or, absent that, some form of ID. What these laws requires is that you bring your voter registration card AND some form of ID, when the authors know good and well that in many cases voters have registration cards, but no ID and no reasonable means to procure ID.

[Fireball]

I love this argument: it's far too onerous for folks to get real IDs, but obviously quite easy for folks to get fake IDs.

I'd wager that in almost any major city, there are more places, and more scattered places, to get fake IDs than there are to get real IDs, and that in many cases, the fake IDs are cheaper, too. Most high schools and certainly every college has someone around who is able to make up a fake ID.

[Mr. Fed]

I love this argument: it's far too onerous for folks to get real IDs, but obviously quite easy for folks to get fake IDs.

I'd wager that in almost any major city, there are more places, and more scattered places, to get fake IDs than there are to get real IDs, and that in many cases, the fake IDs are cheaper, too. Most high schools and certainly every college has someone around who is able to make up a fake ID.

This was my point. Fake ID vendors are motivated by profit and are typically young and hungry. Government ID gatekeepers are 300-pound late-middle-aged women with serious social maladjustments who will get paid the same whether you get your ID or not.

[Fireball]

The effect of requiring ID would only be disenfranchisement of Democratic voters if those voters found getting an ID unduly onerous.

And many would. To get an official state ID, you have to prove that you are who you say you are. For that, you need documents like passports, birth certificates, etc. Many poor people, particularly African Americans unfortunate enough to have been born in the South prior to World War II, never had a drivers license, never traveled, never were in the military, never went to college, never drove and never had any need for ID. Some of them had ID at one point, but let it lapse, since it wasn't needed in their dotage, and are not up to the arduous task of traveling to the DMV office, waiting in line and getting an ID made.

Some of these people, the ONLY time they get out of the house is when they vote. Even more of them don't even leave the house then -- they have their ballots mailed to them, and mail them back.

Any bill that would disenfranchise so much as ONE of these American citizens is beneath consideration and worthy of nothing but disrepute.

Particularly when there's no evidence of a rash of illegal voting. These bills won't solve any existing problem, and risk endangering the voting rights of good American citizens. They're just flat out evil.

Just like the political party that sponsors them.

There's no excuse for allowing even the possibility of fraud in elections, where rendering that fraud impossible would be trivial.

Please describe the "trivial" process that would ensure that EVERY valid, registered voter would have a tamper-proof photo identification card. All without costing anything to that citizen, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

[Tareeq]

They're just flat out evil.

Just like the political party that sponsors them.

You're beautiful when you're angry.

[RunningMn9]

You shouldn't. You should be required to bring your voter registration card, which is mailed to every registered voter every year, with you, or, absent that, some form of ID. What these laws requires is that you bring your voter registration card AND some form of ID, when the authors know good and well that in many cases voters have registration cards, but no ID and no reasonable means to procure ID.

You're funny. I got a voter registration card when I registered to vote prior to the election of 1992. I haven't seen that voter registration card since 1992, and have not been asked to provide ever (including 1992).

They are American citizens and have an inalienable right to vote. Yet you would presume that they are lying?

Yes, I would presume that they are lying. Or rather, I wouldn't presume that they are telling the truth. Why would I? Oh, and you don't have an inalienable right to vote. That's why we deny some people the ability of voting.

[Peacedog]

Atlanta, a city where there are NO locations to get a drivers license issued

It's coming once we get electricity, I'm sure.

Voting is an absolute right

For people over 18. And who haven't lost their ability to vote on account of felonious behavior.

[Tareeq]

Please describe the "trivial" process that would ensure that EVERY valid, registered voter would have a tamper-proof photo identification card. All without costing anything to that citizen, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

The voter ID card in Indiana is free, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

Well, it isn't actually free. Indiana citizens pay for the card through their taxes, but since that's what they want to do with their tax money, I suppose you and I have no right to complain.

[Fireball]

Please describe the "trivial" process that would ensure that EVERY valid, registered voter would have a tamper-proof photo identification card. All without costing anything to that citizen, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

The voter ID card in Indiana is free, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

You skipped the "trivial process" part. Is the process "trivial" for people who have no birth certificate, no passport, no utility bills and who have never driven before? Is the process "trivial" for people who cannot take time off work to go to a government office to get their picture taken? Is it "trivial" for people with no means of transportation save local bus routes, due to economic reasons? Is it "trivial" to the homebound, the physically disabled, the very aged, those incarcerated for misdemeanors, etc?

[khomotso]

I tend to do pretty well no matter who wins the White House, and so, being less affected by health care costs, crime, prescription drugs, welfare payments, etc., I find I have fewer motivators to vote. This apolitical nature is inculcated by my youth and affluence, and thus disenfranchises me from the care that leads to voting.

[The Preacher]

Please describe the "trivial" process that would ensure that EVERY valid, registered voter would have a tamper-proof photo identification card. All without costing anything to that citizen, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

The voter ID card in Indiana is free, since it is illegal to charge money for voting.

You skipped the "trivial process" part. Is the process "trivial" for people who have no birth certificate, no passport, no utility bills and who have never driven before? Is the process "trivial" for people who cannot take time off work to go to a government office to get their picture taken? Is it "trivial" for people with no means of transportation save local bus routes, due to economic reasons? Is it "trivial" to the homebound, the physically disabled, the very aged, those incarcerated for misdemeanors, etc?

It's amazing that these people manage to get out of bed, let alone vote. If you can't get your picture taken by the government, how do you get out to vote? How are they getting transportation to the polls? Perhaps I'm missing how they can do all the things necessary to touch my diebold but not be able to do them to get the ID.

BTW, where is 445 Capitol Ave SE, Atlanta GA. 30312? Is that not actually in Atlanta, GA?

[Fireball]

It's amazing that these people manage to get out of bed, let alone vote.

Many of these people work or spent decades working much harder than any of us who have the time to post on a goof-off website during business hours.

If you can't get your picture taken by the government, how do you get out to vote?

Either you vote by mail, or you are driven to the polling location by a campaign. Many of them can't go into the polling location, though, and have to vote from the curb. But again, most of them vote by mail -- something that would have to be ended immediately if we're going to require ID verification before all voting.

BTW, where is 445 Capitol Ave SE, Atlanta GA. 30312? Is that not actually in Atlanta, GA?

Maybe they opened one. However, when the first Georgia anti-Voter Law was passed, one of the reasons it was thrown out was that there were no department of motor vehicle locations in the city limits of Atlanta.

[Peacedog]

It's amazing that these people manage to get out of bed, let alone vote. If you can't get your picture taken by the government, how do you get out to vote? How are they getting transportation to the polls? Perhaps I'm missing how they can do all the things necessary to touch my diebold but not be able to do them to get the ID.

They can't do all the things necessary to touch your (or anyone else's) diebold without the help of some of those LG democrat do-gooder types. Who presumably oppose this because getting people out to vote is far less of a hassle than getting them out to get ID cards and then getting them out to vote.

BTW, where is 445 Capitol Ave SE, Atlanta GA. 30312? Is that not actually in Atlanta, GA?

It's as center as you are going to get, assuming it's still there. I will note that you can't take the actual road test there, according to the web, but they do issue. Well, not to darkies, but you get the idea.

[Tareeq]

You skipped the "trivial process" part. Is the process "trivial" for people who have no birth certificate, no passport, no utility bills and who have never driven before?

No. I just picked off an ill-considered point you made in your usual hyperbolic/hysterical style.

I'm fully aware of the difficulties that shiftless people suffer in voting no matter what the state may require of them.

[The Preacher]

It's amazing that these people manage to get out of bed, let alone vote.

Many of these people work or spent decades working much harder than any of us who have the time to post on a goof-off website during business hours.

I said get out of bed, not work.

If you can't get your picture taken by the government, how do you get out to vote?

Either you vote by mail, or you are driven to the polling location by a campaign. Many of them can't go into the polling location, though, and have to vote from the curb. But again, most of them vote by mail -- something that would have to be ended immediately if we're going to require ID verification before all voting.

Does the Indiana law require an ID for voting by mail? As for the latter, why couldn't the same campaigns that are toting people around to beg for their vote just gather them up to get the ID?

BTW, where is 445 Capitol Ave SE, Atlanta GA. 30312? Is that not actually in Atlanta, GA?

Maybe they opened one. However, when the first Georgia anti-Voter Law was passed, one of the reasons it was thrown out was that there were no department of motor vehicle locations in the city limits of Atlanta.

So perhaps likewise it's a little bit of hyperbole to say that it is sooooo difficult to get an ID.

[Pyperkub]

I'm having trouble understanding why it's a problem that you are required to show that you are who you say you are before you vote.

Historically, it has been because it has been used to disenfranchise voters, both through intimidation at the polling places and in the ID obtainment process. See the Voting Rights Act of 1965

By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act.

Congress determined that the existing federal anti-discrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to enforcement of the 15th Amendment. The legislative hearings showed that the Department of Justice's efforts to eliminate discriminatory election practices by litigation on a case-by-case basis had been unsuccessful in opening up the registration process; as soon as one discriminatory practice or procedure was proven to be unconstitutional and enjoined, a new one would be substituted in its place and litigation would have to commence anew.

The idea behind the Indiana law is, in spirit, similar to the kinds of laws and regulations that led to the Voting Rights Act being adopted in the first place. Particularly in the absence of any actual fraud, the practical effect of the law is the disenfranchisement of poorer, minority citizens the Voting Rights Act was designed to protect.

However, will the current SCOTUS still see it this way?

[Grundbegriff]

I love this argument: it's far too onerous for folks to get real IDs, but obviously quite easy for folks to get fake IDs.

I'd wager that in almost any major city, there are more places, and more scattered places, to get fake IDs than there are to get real IDs, and that in many cases, the fake IDs are cheaper, too. Most high schools and certainly every college has someone around who is able to make up a fake ID.

Well then-- requiring 'em at the polling site truly isn't a burden, eh?

ID required:
"Getting a real ID is too hard!"
"Getting a fake ID is super easy"

Ergo, "ID required" doesn't pose a significant impediment.

[Montag]

I suggest the amount of effort to obtain enough fake ids to skew the elections would be too much and would also result in them being discovered.

[Tareeq]

I suggest the amount of effort to obtain enough fake ids to skew the elections would be too much and would also result in them being discovered.

Tell that to Brian Johnson.

[Patchfoot]

The working man in me (hello down there!) agrees this could be problematic considering the difficulty most people have dealing with government offices when you work during the day every day. This is particularly bad when you work a job where you are easily replaceable.

That doesn't mean this whole idea should be abandoned though. You could go through a lot of means to make it easier for people to have access. Longer than normal business hours, shuttle services, etc. Of course we're talking about a big difference in budget, but its not unworkable.

I'm uncertain on the need. I have a feeling this actually is a sneaky way of attempting to shoulder aside the poor and minorities, but I also wonder if we don't know about voter fraud because we have fews way to detect and almost no one concerned with investigating it. The ohio voter fraud conviction didn't seem to make many waves.

[Montag]

I suggest the amount of effort to obtain enough fake ids to skew the elections would be too much and would also result in them being discovered.

Tell that to Brian Johnson.

Too much web noise. Google powers weak. Provide info please.

[Pyperkub]

Too much web noise. Google powers weak. Provide info please.

Andrew Clark: This is the worst fake I.D. I've ever seen. You realize you made yourself sixty-eight.
Brian Johnson: Oh, I know, I know. I goofed it.
Andrew Clark: What do you need a fake I.D. for?
Brian Johnson: So I can vote!

[Rip]

Let's just go ahead and plant a microchip in everyone tied to thier DNA and get it over with.

[noxiousdog]

Let's just go ahead and plant a microchip in everyone tied to thier DNA and get it over with.

And prevent them from breeding!

[Rip]

http://nypost.com/2017/04/03/bosses-are ... -implants/

Not a matter of if but of when.

[hepcat]

Oh man, I hope this doesn't evolve into a suppository.

[gilraen]

When even Texas decides you're discriminating against minorities...

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the voter identification law the Texas Legislature passed in 2011 was enacted with the intent to discriminate against black and Hispanic voters, raising the possibility that the state’s election procedures could be put back under federal oversight.

In a long-running case over the legality of one of the toughest voter ID laws in the country, the judge found that the law violated the federal Voting Rights Act.