Voter ID Laws

[Stinky The Clown]

Do you think the draconian crap the House is working on - the requirement for proof of citizenship to vote - will become the law of the land?

Personally, I see the whole thing as part of the Republican demagoguing about immigration and not a real issue. To be sure, there are some who genuinely want this, but they're the minority. Most just don't a shit and see it as simply something to trumpet as they campaign back home.

I also think that, even it passes the House the Senate is most likely to reject it. And even in the unlikely event the Senate passes it and it becomes law, the Supremes - even the Scalito/Roberts/Slappy nutters wing - will slap it down.

[baldguy]

1. Yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2184544

[waiting for hope]

2. I heard on NPR this morning

that they would make getting an ID free - that's the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. What state can bear the burden of doing that? If not the state's doing, then we are one step closer to national id's and that is even scarier.

[AllegroRondo]

8. And what documents do you need to get the 'free' ID?

how much do those cost?

[fuzzyball]

15. Birth certificate should be more than enough...

That is all we need every time my family goes to Mexico
for vacation, to re-enter US and pass immigration inspection.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. When was the last time you visited Mexico?

[fuzzyball]

25. April 2006

[beaconess]

32. Lots of people don't have their birth certificates

And it can be expensive and inconvenient for them to get a certified copy.

And some folks - particularly older people born in rural areas - never were issued birth certificates and, thus will have to come up with some other way to prove citizenship. People should not have to jump through these kinds of hoops to exercise their constitutional right to vote.


This law is nothing more than a naked attempt to disenfranchise voters while demagoguing the immigration issue at the same time. Plain and simple.

[fuzzyball]

42. We jump through many hoops to get a drivers license, to rent an

apartment, to get a loan to buy a cheap clunker of a car,
to buy a firearm, even to get married. Voting is a very
important privilege and those who wish to exercise that
right should not be so lax as to not produce a proof of
citizenship. Otherwise we are cheapenning this supreme
exercise of citizenship.

[beaconess]

45. Voting isn't a privilege - it's a right - therefore people should not have

to "jump through hoops" in order to do so - especially when those hoops are thrown up for the express purpose of curtailing the right of eligible citizens to vote.

We cheapen the right to vote, not by making it easier for every eligible American to exercise it, but by making it an obstacle course to be overcome by only the most hardy.

[tammywammy]

38. As of January 1, 2007

You'll need your passport to go to Mexico & Canada.

[fuzzyball]

41. I heard that and it sux....will cost us $400+ for no return benefit

[-..__...]

31. "we are one step closer to national id's"

we're already there... or pretty damn close.

Real ID Act...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.418:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act_of_2005

Never mind the cost/logistics of a voter ID card.

When the Real ID thing goes into effect, it's going to be a bureaucratic nightmare.

[MrCoffee]

3. The OP is dead on. This is pure electioneering.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I think it will -- briefly -- become the law of the land...

It'll pass the Senate, the president will sign it into law, and then the SCOTUS will throw it in the trash.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Not challenging your view .... but I'm curious how you voted in this poll

Your view is that the ultimate outcome is a 'no', but for a short time - parhaps a time that will prove meaningless if it isn't around election time - it will be law.

If I had to guess, given your view of the ultimate outcome, you'd have voted 'no'.

How *did* you vote? :)

[SteppingRazor]

11. Um ... er... I sort of forgot to vote.

I just voted for "Other," though, so there's your answer!

[MemphisTiger]

6. I don't see the big deal here

you have to show a photo ID when you write a check, how is this a big deal? How does is disenfranchising voters. Go and get a DL or a state ID card. When I worked in retail I saw a ton of state issued ID cards.

The proof of citizenship is a littel strange but I have no problem with photo id being show at voting. In my part of the country we have election irregularities frequently and this would be one step closer to whoever got the most votes wins, as it should be. We have alot of dead people voting too so a pulse would be required.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. There are many people - usually low income - who don't have a ......

.... drivers license or a car (witness NoLa's issue with people not being **able** to leave their homes). These people often also have a basic mistrust of government in general. Rather than get a mandated ID, they'll simply decide not to vote.

This is just another twist on Jim Crow and it is dead-assed wrong.

[AllegroRondo]

9. And older people, especially in nursing homes

who just dont drive any more (or never did!)

[MemphisTiger]

10. I see what you're saying

BUT there are still state ID cards that are issued, this would be acceptable. I know it's a hassle to get an ID card, but frankly so if voting.

[AllegroRondo]

12. The problem is the hassle is targeted at some very specific groups

the poor, the homeless, the elderly, and minorities. The average middle class white voter wont have any problems at all.

We need to ensure that these problems are well known to our representatvies, and that remedies are included in the legislation. Otherwise we cannot allow it to pass.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I'm sorry, but the forgotten parts of our population remain forgotten ....

..... with that kind of thinking.

It is, in some cases, voter intimidation and in other cases voter disenfranchisement. It either case, it is DEAD wrong.

[MemphisTiger]

17. How is this even close to voter intimidation to ask someone

to get a photo ID? I think that's a cop out. If you have to show your ID to buy beer how is this any different?

I believe the NPR story mentioned making arrangements for those people like mennonites and native americans that don't believe in picture taking.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. You know .... I'm not sure how to even explain this to you

Try talking to a person of color in the most decrepit part of Memphis and ask her what she thinks of this. Ask her if she'll be off to the hall of records for he legal, certified birth certificate. Ask her if she trusts the government.

Empathy ..... its a good thing.

[beaconess]

36. Thank you.

[MemphisTiger]

44. You can't explain it because you have a poor argument

requiring a photo ID is NOT in anyway denying anyones right to vote. All you have to do is show an ID and BAM you get to vote, big deal. No money, no tests. I personally don't trust folks that show up to a voter station and they get to vote with no questions asked and due to voting irregularities we had one person on the state level recalled because she "won" by a slim margin and several dead people voted for her. This needs to stop, if you get the most LEGITIMATE votes you win it's that simple.

[beaconess]

35. It's different because buying beer is not a constitutional right

Voting is and it is illegal to put obstacles in the way of people trying to exercise that right.

Under your reasoning, poll taxes and literacy tests - which have been unequivocally declared unconstitutional - are perfectly ok.

[MemphisTiger]

43. That is not at all what I said

[beaconess]

34. Yes - voting is a hassle. So why make it even MORE of a hassle

for the very people who can least afford it?

[truebrit71]

21. It's creating a back-door poll tax which is unconstitutional.

Unless the ID's are given out for free they cannot require the ID.

[beaconess]

33. Writing a check is not a constitutional right. Voting is

People have all sorts of other alternatives to writing a check if they don't have a photo ID. They have no alternative to voting.

The problem is NOT the showing of a picture id. The problem is when the law requires a STATE ISSUED photo ID - something that many people (mostly low-income and elderly) do not have.

It also discriminates against students who don't attend state schools. For example, in Georgia, the previous requirement was that a photo id was required to vote. Students at all of the colleges in the area who were registered to vote in Georgia could simply show their college ids and vote with no problem. But the new Georgia id law required a STATE-ISSUED photo id. This means that students at University of Georgia, Georgia Tech, Georgia State and other state schools could vote easily with their student ids. But students at Spellman, Morehouse, and other private schools - many of which are HBCUs - couldn't vote with their student ids and, thus, had to go through extra measures in order to vote.

It may seem like a simple thing and it may be for you and me and others with the wherewithal to get the right id, but it can be a terrible burden to people who don't have the money, the transportation, or the expendable time needed to comply with this law - a single mother working two jobs, with no car, and little disposable income is not going to think it's no big deal to have to take time off from work, take a couple of busses across town or to another county and pay money she just can't spare just to get an id so she can exercise her constitutional right to vote.

This is a terrible bill - shame on Congress.

[Auntie Bush]

14. No, the senate will reject it. I HOPE!

Edited to add that you have to get to the place that does the photo ID's.
People without a car (or who work weekends) would find it difficult to get the paper work done. Also who is going to pay for the advertising or mailings to everyone to let them know the law has been changed. These people may end up at the polls to vote and be turned away. I wonder how many MILLIONS of voters (mostly or all Democrats) will be disenfranchised? This is just another attempt to steal the vote and watch out...there will be more. KKKarl goes to bed nights thinking of new ways to disenfranchise more Democrats. It's on his evil mind constantly and that's when creative ideas are created.

[FILAM23]

18. I sure hope so

if one non citizen votes that is too many.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. How many non citizens have voted in the past?

Cite me a statistic with a credible source, not some bullshit talking point. This is a total non-issue.

A better question for you to ask is 'how many votes have been uncounted or contorted?'

[fuzzyball]

26. No way to quantify since citizenship proof is not required to vote

I recall the first time I registered to vote...the
democrat precinct captain came to my home and registered
me and asked for no proof of citizenship. And I speak with
an accent so he had to know I was not born here.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. The 'democrat' precinct captain, huh?

Interesting ......

[fuzzyball]

40. I lived in Chicago at the time....there were no republicans around

in enough numbers to do the door to door registering of voters.
I am sure in republican strong holds the same thing happens. But
the issue is not the party, the issue at hand is that no proof of
citizenship is required to become a voter. Therefore the statistics
you are asking for simply can not exist.

[truebrit71]

22. Please cite cases where that has happened. Thanks!

Also, wouldn't we be better served by making sure that the actual votes cast actually got counted, rather than try to PREVENT people from voting in the first place?

[tkmorris]

24. That's a bold statement

Do you realize that if our criminal justice system took the same approach, the presumption would be "guilty until proven innocent"?

This would be a foul country indeed if on every occasion we wanted to exercise a right, we had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt we were entitled to that right.

[beaconess]

37. Can you offer any statistics of non-citizens voting?

And do you really think it better to disenfranchise possibly millions of people in order to prevent one non-citizen from voting?

[loyalsister]

23. It's a poll tax

If a person has to spend money on an ID or a birth certificate so that they may acquire a free ID for the sole purpose of voting, they are paying money to vote.
They are also expending extra time to deal with it all.
Ultimately the results of a law like this are that voting becomes more difficult for some people than others.
I have been dealing with potential fallout from one in Missouri. There are people who are blind who have had state IDs, but never noticed when they expired. Elders who stopped renewing when they hit age 85. People who don't drive.
Supporters should not forget that if you lose your ID somehow the day before election day, you're screwed.
Aside from the basic unfairness, the cost of safeguarding against all of these things is massive.
Who would pay for it? It's a very bad ideas all around.

[flaminbats]

27. yes..and a tax Republicans love to increase!

if your license isn't still valid, then time to pay for another one. If you can't drive or have a disability, tough luck!

something tells me this will be struck down faster than lightning by the courts, if it passes.

[Sam Odom]

28. Voter ID plays well in the 'heartland' and...

plays well with MANY people in blue states too.

[flaminbats]

29. I agree..if handled correctly

photo ID..like an old license, some college ID, or even an outdated passport should be valid. But the necessary ID must also be free and made available to every citizen, especially if they can't drive! Otherwise this is another issue we better make Republicans pay a price for.

[loyalsister]

30. yeah

not caring if the marginalized vote is a heartland value.
What the hell, people who don't drive because of disability probably don't care about voting anyway. Nevermind the fact that public polocy will effect their lives at a level greater than most.
To disregard these voters, their investment in elections, and their stake in policies such as this is to turn a blind eye and underestimate the electoral sway they may have.
Dems need to fight this.