Please explain: Only provide ID first time voting

[melissinha]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this... I have been frequenting this forum, and have frequently come across the voting reform issue of not requiring ID when person shows up to vote.

Don't get me wrong, I am on board with the whole Ohio Conspiracy... under-supplied voting machines to precints, intimidation efforts, fixing of Optical Scanning tabulating machines etc. I had watched Congressman Conyer's efforts with respect to the Investigation.. but never go the answer. I also understand that requiring additional documentation to Voter's Registration Card or Driver's License is bogus and is a form of poll taxing.... But why can't we just ask for the all encompassing Driver's License or ID card?

I just can't see why you wouldn't want to VERIFY that I am who I say I am with a picture ID. The DNC Report refers to proper disposal of Registration lists.... now am I correct to assume that if a particular party got a hold of the lists... they could send someone to my precinct to vote in my place? I mean if no ID is required someone could pose to be me....

Maybe I am taking the conspiracy too far, but I think that if a person is intelligent enough to make a choice regarding the election of officials, they can certainly provide normal identification that grocery stores require when I use my credit card.

[meganmonkey]

1. Here's a link from a quick search...

It seems to cover the basic arguments:
----------------
Suing to overturn a new voter identification law, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union said Thursday the law requiring a photo ID before voting will drive the poor, elderly and others away from casting their ballots.

---snip---

Supporters say the law is designed to end fraud and guarantee fair elections, but the ICLU claims it places a burden on the poor, disabled, homeless and others who may have difficulty obtaining an ID.

While the law allows the poor to get a free ID, the ICLU says fees associated with obtaining a birth certificate and other documents needed to get identification in Indiana make the law unconstitutional.

“Much like a poll tax, Indiana residents will have to pay to vote,” Falk said.

more at link...

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050428/NEWS02/50428023/1008

[melissinha]

2. Guess I assumed

I guess since I use mine so much, I had assumed you can't get by without an ID, therefore I assumed that everyone had one.

Guess I don't live the life of those people and haven't had their obstacles in my life....

Its a tough one.... But then people HAVE to register to vote, and if they truly do not have other documentation.... you still do get the voter's registration card....

hmmmm. still torn.

[meganmonkey]

3. I see it this way...

It may be possible for someone to vote under your name, but the probablility is unlikely that this happens much. I haven't heard any statistics saying it is actually a problem. But even if it does happen, it is done by a few scattered individuals. And it would likely be counterbalanced because of people on both sides doing it. It would take a huge conspiracy for any significant fraud to occur this way.
But disenfranchisement is a serious issue as it is, with address changes/provisional ballots/etc, and requiring IDs will increase disenfranchisement on a much wider scale, it will intimidate people, and the vast majority of the people it will effect have a tendency to vote for Dems - it won't be balanced out on both sides.

So I would rather err on the side of voters' rights than against them.

[Internut]

5. The argument that requiring photo ID to vote is unconstitutional is

ridiculous. In fact, a directly opposite argument can be used - that NOT requiring identification such as birth certificate or photo ID is unconstititional.

Amendment XXVI

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
...

In order to ascertain that the citizen is, in fact, eighteen or older, ID is required.

[Zan_of_Texas]

6. I don't get it either.

(I think it's probably a distraction technique by the R's, so we don't look at their GIANT crimes.)

I know the old trick of requiring no ID of white folks, and THREE picture IDs of black folks -- they used to do that in the dance bar I went to way back when. We wrote a story up on it, exposed the practice.

But, one reason to have compact, small, stable precincts is so that the precinct judge knows who is who. That is a good thing.

I've seen my judge ask for a utility bill for someone, to verify their address.

A college picture ID should be valid -- I know there were some extra hoops for college students in the November election.

So, if getting a picture ID is so hard for some folks, why not make the voter registration card a photo ID card?

I want every citizen, including all former felons, to be able to vote. But, I'm sick and tired of Republicans trying to get traction on so-called "voter fraud", acting like people are trying to vote twice or whatever. It's insulting, especially when the R's stole the election by probably more than 7 million votes.

[Igel]

4. I don't understand this reference either.

I looked up the code--I'm not a lawyer, but it clearly has methods for anybody, inc. official "challengers" or any of the folks staffing the precinct--to issue challenges. It includes various kinds of challenges, with the stipulation that if any of the challenges had previously been made, the elections board shall have informed the precinct of the decision and that decision is final.