Voter ID bill results - Government issued ID required by 2008

[Coexist]

Yea - 222
Nay - 144

Bill passes.

Recorded vote being ordered. 5 minute vote.

Vote seems to have fallen along party lines.

[EFerrari]

1. I hate these people.

Now, what? Do we have another call-in?

:nuke:

[Dic mihi solum facta]

22. What's wrong?

What is wrong with asking people to show proof that they are who they say they are? You don't need a driver's license, just any form of State issued ID, which is pretty much necessary to even cash a check.

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/license.htm#nondriver

This will go a lot farther to reduce voter fraud than electronic voter machines ever could.

[EFerrari]

23. Welcome to DU. I hope you enjoy your stay here.

:hi:

[Dic mihi solum facta]

28. Thanks!

:-)

[LSK]

24. can you say "POLL TAX"?

So when are they going to wave all fees when you go get a license or ID?

[Dic mihi solum facta]

27. Not the same

I am all for making the ID free but an 8-year non-driver ID in NY State is only $13.00 -- hardly a "tax" designed to disenfranchise voters.

[EFerrari]

33. Wrong. That's exactly what it is. For the handful of ALLEGED

cases of "voter" fraud, you disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor and minority voters.

This measure is an effort to suppress votes and primarily votes for Democrats.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

36. Reply

Well, aside from the clarification made earlier that it would have to be a Passport and not a non-drivers photo ID issued by a State, how would this disenfranchise any voter especially if it, the ID, was made"free"?

[LSK]

38. and where in the bill is it made for "free"?

:shrug:

[Dic mihi solum facta]

41. Hypothetical

See other post in this thread. The bill is flawed.

[Crabby Appleton]

98. this part

‘‘(4) MAKING PHOTO IDENTIFICATIONS AVAILABLE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—During fiscal year
2008 and each succeeding fiscal year, each State
shall establish a program to provide photo iden
tifications which may be used to meet the re
quirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) by indi
viduals who desire to vote in elections held in the
State but who do not otherwise possess a govern
ment-issued photo identification.

‘‘(B) IDENTIFICATIONS PROVIDED AT NO
COST TO INDIGENT INDIVIDUALS.—If a State
charges an individual a fee for providing a photo
identification under the program established
under subparagraph (A)—
‘‘(i) the fee charged may not exceed the
reasonable cost to the State of providing the

24 identification to the individual; and

‘‘(ii) the State may not charge a fee to
any individual who provides an attestation
that the individual is unable to afford the
fee.

[Realityhack]

110. Thanks for providing that Crabby

For those who want to see the bill its here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4844:

Two things strike me here. First off the bill makes no mention whatsoever of what constitutes 'proof' of US citizenship. It seems to me that this would be absolutely crucial in determining if the bill would suppress votes. Most forms of 'proof of citizenship' have problems where some people can't obtain the proof. I do not think this would be constitutional if someone could demonstrate that there are circumstances under which you could be a legal voter but unable to obtain the document necessary to vote.

Another interesting thing to me is that they want to allow the state to charge you but not if you attest that you can't afford it. Now that could indeed be quite embarrassing. Its like saying we have a $2 poll tax but if you can't afford it you just have to fill out this form and swear you are broke and we will wave it. It seems to me that such a provision might not be constitutional.

[bobbolink]

58. I'm sure you could figure it out if you were to think seriously about

poor folk.

Some don't have enough money to buy needed prescriptions, remember?

The list goes on...

Have a heart, please.

[alarimer]

107. They may not have access to their birth certificate either

or other documents required as "proof"

The is a solution in search of a problem. And it will disenfranchise thousands. We have no country anymore.

[EFerrari]

89. There are many, many people, especially poor minority people

that have neither passport nor state i.d. nor drivers license.

Aside from that, a citezen's right to vote is inherent, not bestowed by a government document. Careful -- this bill erodes ALL citizens' voting rights, including yours.

[malaise]

56. Really in most parts of the world

national IDs required for voting are free. $13 may not be money to you but you don't earn the minimum wage. I bet you don't even know the current minimum wage.

[Realityhack]

75. Lets be honest.

A poll tax is a poll tax. Period. You can't get away with ignoring the president against a poll tax by arguing that it is 'pritty low really'.

As someone pointed out most non-driver IDs would not count anyway. And a passport takes an auful long time to get, involves more than $13, involves lots of forms especialy if you have any unusual cercumstances (no perminent address?), etc.

In addition if you are going to say something about a hypothetical bill in which the ID was free and all the other associated problems where solved... I think you would still be foreced to admit that in its CURRENT form this bill would be unconstitutional.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[me b zola]

104. I love it when you greet our "special guests" with that one

;)

[Pab Sungenis]

29. No, that's not the case.

It has to be a government issued ID WITH PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.

Except for six red states, which include that information on their drivers' licenses, the only possible form of ID with that information is a Passport.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

31. Thanks

Thanks for the clarification.

[Realityhack]

70. FYI

I had the same question at some point. Check out the ACLU. They are/where suing over a similar state law because there where a whole bunch of people (who where legal voters) for whom it was literaly imposible to meet the requirements to get a qualifying ID.

If we where just talking about a photo ID I think it would be hard to be uposed to it. Something that verifies who you are before checking your name off? Seems reasonable. But as I understand it this is something quite diffrent under the guise of a basic ID.

The devil is always in the details.

[Bridget Burke]

35. What "voter fraud"?

We've had some pretty dicey elections in the last few years. But the fraud usually happened higher up.

Please--let us know about all those fraudulent voters...

[Dic mihi solum facta]

37. General statement

Fraud happens at many levels and this is one way to reduce fraud at one level. It is not a panacea.

[LSK]

39. where is the bill regarding out of control Sec of States?

Like a Secretary of State CANNOT be Chair of one of the parties election campaigns.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

42. Focus

on the topic at hand -- ID.

[Bridget Burke]

43. If the topic at hand is "voter fraud"....

Please supply some documentation on recent instances.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

47. The topic is about ID and a "poll tax"

or so I thought. This bill is flawed but the underlying idea of showing proof of ID is not a "poll tax" nor would it disenfranchise voters since most non-driver ID's are very inexpensive.

I'm not sure if there is a lot of voter fraud due to the lack of an ID, but it is one way to help deter it at one level with minimal cost.

[Realityhack]

80. Here's the thing...

even if we hand you the hypothetical that we are talking about showing proof of ID not a more specific form of ID...

You have to get around two things:
1. Doesn't matter if its a $0.01 poll tax. Its a poll tax. And for some people $13 IS something. Sure its not many... but are you saying its ok to prevent those people from voting?

Now say you couple the bill with something requiring the requisite ID be free... Fine your getting closer but you still have to deal with

2. What are the requirements to obtain the ID? In order for the bill to be constitutional I think you would have to demonstrate that nobody who is a legal voter would be excluded due to the requirements to obtain the ID. So please specify exactly what requirements you would put on people to obtain an ID.

Seriously tell us what you think a fair set of requirements would be.

[Bridget Burke]

100. Oh, so now you're not sure there's a lot of voter fraud...

Thanks.

[LSK]

45. swatting flies with a bazooka

Now about those discouraged poor (and likely Dem voters)...

[Sapphire Blue]

40. How would you suggest reducing/eliminating republican election fraud?

[Dic mihi solum facta]

44. Focus

on the topic at hand.

[Sapphire Blue]

46. The topics at hand are republican election fraud & voter suppression.

I'm sure that you will be voting Democratic in November to get these corrupt republicans out, though... and that your vote will be counted... exactly as you cast it.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

48. Write-in

I don't like either party but I still plan to do my civic duty and vote for myself. I don't like my odds though!

:-)

[Sapphire Blue]

52. Are you saying that you DON't support Democratic candidates...

... for political office?

Please read #2 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Dic mihi solum facta]

57. I support

ideas, not just candidates of a particular party. If you wish to report me and have me banned that is your perogitive but I plan to abaide by all the rules of this forum. Including:

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

[Sapphire Blue]

59. All the rules? Including this one?

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


Your previous post implied that you don't support Democratic candidates for political office; this post doesn't seem to say anything different.

Why would you think I wish to report you & have you banned? (btw, banning is up to the Admin, not me.)

[Dic mihi solum facta]

60. So long as they

follow the ideals of such great Democrats as FDR and JFK.

[Sapphire Blue]

61. Who do you see as our great Democratic leaders today?

[Sapphire Blue]

63. And how do you feel about republican election fraud & voter suppression?

(Since you didn't comment on those issues in your previous post, I'm wondering where you stand?)

[Dic mihi solum facta]

66. The same

as I do about democrat election fraud & voter supression.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. Focus.

The adjective form is democratic or Democratic, depending on whether you are referring to the principle or the political party.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

76. noted

thanks

[Sapphire Blue]

71. You said "democrat election fraud & voter supression." Please explain.

Just the facts, please.

(btw, it's 'Democratic', not "democrat".)

[Dic mihi solum facta]

73. You first.

[Sapphire Blue]

77. Focus

You said "democrat election fraud & voter supression." Please explain.

Just the facts, please.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

79. If you don't think it occurs on both sides of the political spectrum

then there is nothing more to discuss.

[Sapphire Blue]

81. Focus

You said "democrat election fraud & voter supression." Please explain.

Just the facts, please.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

83. Focus.

You said, "republican election fraud & voter suppression".

Please explain.

[Sapphire Blue]

84. You need "republican election fraud & voter suppression" explained?

Focus. You said "democrat election fraud & voter supression." Please explain.

Just the facts, please.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

85. You need "democratic election fraud & voter suppression" explained?

[Sapphire Blue]

86. I'd love to hear your explanation... Dic mihi solum facta.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

87. And yet you initated a general statement that you will not back up with fa

What is good for the goose...

G'night.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

88. ...with facts.

[Sapphire Blue]

91. We ARE on the same side here, aren't we? (The Democratic side, that is.)

It's rather difficult to tell; you seem to be accusing Democrats of election fraud & voter suppression.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

93. Yes we are - we are on the same side of preventing fraud

by either side, aren't we? The use of ID is just one small step in that process.

[Sapphire Blue]

96. "preventing fraud by either side"?? Please explain Democratic fraud.

You've stated repeatedly that Democrats are committing election fraud & voter suppression, but you won't explain what you mean. Are you saying that the Democrats are hacking into/tampering w/voting machines? If so, why were the results flipped to bush? How many republican voting districts had a shortage of voting machines? How many republicans' names were incorrectly put on a felons' list? How many thousands of republican votes did the Democrats suppress in the past two presidential elections?

And if Democrats committed widespread election fraud & voter suppression, why didn't President Gore take the oath of office in January 2001 as he should have? Why didn't President Kerry take the oath of office in January 2005 as he should have?

Focus. Explain what you mean. Answer the questions or dance by yourself.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

99. Yawn

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[raccoon]

102. You need that explained? What cave have you been living in

for the past 6 years?

[LSK]

54. why?

[me b zola]

65. You mean like rich rethuglicans who vote in two different states?

Some of them sure do that, but I don't imagine that your panties are all in a bunch over that.

Why are you guys so afraid of legal voters expressing their will at the voting booth? If you are so freaking worried about fraud, WTF have you done to stop the rethuglican party from stopping tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of legal voters from excercising the most necessary right for a democracy to exist?

[Dic mihi solum facta]

67. Anyone who does that is wrong

and I'm just as ticked off no matter the party.

One Man
One Vote
One Time

[Bridget Burke]

101. What about women?

We've had the vote for quite a while.

[me b zola]

105. You didn't answer the question:

What have you done to stop the rethuglican party from denying tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of legal voters from excercising the most necessary right for a democracy to exist?

[lonestarnot]

62. What part of vote suppression don't you get?

[WinkyDink]

68. Links to proven impersonations of real voters?

[Dic mihi solum facta]

74. You really doubt this happens?

You really think that there isn't some voter fraud (regardless of party affiliation) based on misrepresentation?

[EFerrari]

90. A handful of allegations are outweighed by the harm this bill

will do to ALL our voting rights.

Do you really doubt that these corrupt Republicans would stoop to legislating vote suppression? They'd run over their mother if it would bring them power or $.

[Dic mihi solum facta]

94. I agree that this is a bad bill.

[never_get_over_it]

108. Voter Fraud?

Voter Fraud is not the issue ELECTION FRAUD is the issue - this is just a way for the repunks to supress votes by legitimate voters - there have been several states that have already tried this and it is getting struck down in the courts - you should look into it

Voter Fraud is when a voter tries to vote illegally which is how the repunks are framing this issue

Election Fraud is what has happened in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and unfortunately probably again this year. Election Fraud is accomplished by disenfranchising voters - and electronic voting machines that can be manipulated....

You can be sure if the repunks support it - it can't be good for the voter....

[Warren DeMontague]

111. You're saying electronic voter machines REDUCE fraud?

If by "fraud" you mean "people voting for the guy Diebold doesn't like", maybe you're right.

[texastoast]

113. What if you don't cash checks?

What if you get paid under the table because it saves a bunch of highrollers living in the richest part of town a lot of money to pay cash?

No vote? I was married to a second generation American who worked only for cash. White guy descended from one of the most brilliant composers of all time. What about him? He had a big counterculture issue (because we were both old hippies) about keeping i.d. because of Big Brother. Does he get to vote?

You know, he's not philosophically in line with the shithead shrubito, but he was a fucking genius whose scientific papers got stolen by a major university professor. What about him? He's got a really good utilities bill i.d., though. Will that do?

[ThomWV]

2. It Is Unconstitutional, but beside that it will never pass in the Senate

[restorefreedom]

6. I agree

There are several "moderate republicans" that will not go along with this--just enough to stop it from passing hopefully.

[Pab Sungenis]

30. Filibuster!

NOW!

[Coexist]

12. I agree - the courts will throw this out.

But the vote is on record.

[ThomWV]

19. I Beleive 4 State's Supreme Courts Already Have Thrown It Out

Georgia tossed it just yesterday.

[Realityhack]

72. And I missed it??

They ruled on it and I missed it.. Not from Georgia but still I would have had a cupcake in celibration or something.

[lonestarnot]

64. It better damn well not!

[LSK]

3. ??? Im still seeing the vote right now

:wtf:

[Coexist]

5. there was a request for a recorded vote

that is what you are seeing.

[LSK]

7. ok

Not that the vote would have been any different.

[napi21]

4. Since these kind of laws have been consistently overturned at the

State level quite a few times, would the best thing be to just challenge this one at the SCOTUS level?

That certainly seems to be the best answer in my mind!

[AspenRose]

8. Where do you go to see how everyone voted....

I want to see how my congressman voted (especially since I called his office)

[Coexist]

10. you will have to wait a little while, then go here:

http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html

but all Democrats and one independant (guess who) voted Nay, all republicans voted Aye.

[Radical Activist]

14. Do you have the bill number?

The link goes to a search page. I don't see a link to what happened today.

[Coexist]

18. sorry - here

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

it doesn't go up right away.

[WePurrsevere]

21. All Repubs? Drat that McHugh. He has a great Dem opponent that

unfortunately has a slim chance of winning. :(

(If anyone's interested in learning more about NNY's Bob Johnson... http://www.johnsonforcongress.org/)

[LSK]

11. house website

www.house.gov

Look for roll call votes. Wait about an hour thou.

[restorefreedom]

9. can this be stopped at the state level?

This seems to be addressing federal elections, like the presidency (how convenient). But if a state says no ID needed, will that apply to federal elections or does the state only have the authority to make it apply to state/local elections--anyone know the legalities?

(this is assuming that it will pass the senate which is very unlikely)

[WePurrsevere]

13. This is outragious. I'd like to see how my (moderate) Repub Rep voted.

Considering the cost to an individual this is voter suppression of the poor and unconstitutional. Hopefully the Senate will put a stop to this nonsense.

[notadmblnd]

15. is this in the house or the senate?

never mind, I rea it upthread.

[LSK]

16. house

Senate can filibuster it.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. 222 FUCKING BASTARDS

:puke:

[LSK]

20. the usual suspects

[MadHound]

25. This is in direct opposition to the latest rulings of various courts

Here in Missouri, along with Georgia and a couple of other states that I can't remember off the top of my head, various courts have ruled this Voter ID nonsense as being unconstitutional, imposing an unfair monetary burden on people just to exercise their right to vote. Thus, they're going to try it at the national level, and then watch as the issue works its way up to the hand picked Supreme Court who will state that it is just okey dokey constitutionally. Thus, we will see the voting rights of mostly poor, mostly Democratic voters go by the wayside. Just in time for the '08 election too.

[dubyaD40web]

32. Here's some links

The votes: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll456.xml

Info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.4844:

[ComerPerro]

34. Can't wait till people get pissed when they find out they have to

shell out cash for a passport.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Internal passports will be available for "only" the cost of a night out.

Next step, literacy requirements. After all, the constitution is silent about both "proper identification" and literacy as requirements to prevent otherwise-eligible people from voting.

[raccoon]

103. Last time I checked passport was $65. That's a lot if you

don't make jackshit.

[FILAM23]

50. I oppose this but I am all in favor of having to prove

citizenship when you apply for your voter registration card

[tkmorris]

55. You would be amazed

at just how many bona fide American citizens there are who nonetheless do not possess proof that they are. Acquiring that proof is possible for them, but costs money they do not have, or at least is in short supply. Asking them to do so in order to vote is simply an attempt to persuade them not to bother.

There are lots of voting issues that need attention. This is NOT one of them. This is a solution to a problem that does not exist, being put forth for partisan reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Realityhack]

82. There may also be a number...

who can never obtain that proof depending upon what constitutes official 'proof'.

ACLU had some stuff on this in refrence to some state laws they had sued over.

[FILAM23]

92. All it takes is a certified copy of your birth certificate.

The same document most states use when you apply for a drivers license/many states also require
it for marriage license, So yes I would be surprised if the number is as high as
you think it is

[Dic mihi solum facta]

95. Good point!

[Realityhack]

106. Well...

there are a number. Birth certificates have been destroyed in fire etc. And geting a cirtified copy would have to be free or it would still constitute a poll tax.

The secondary question becomes, if we are woried about people fradulently registering to vote... how hard is a birth certificate to fake? Would it do more to prevent fraud or prevent a whole bunch of people who can't easily get a copy of their birth certificate from voting?

[alarimer]

109. My sister was born in Puerto Rico

And she had a heck of a time getting a copy of her birth certificate. PR is part of the US but the original was in Spanish and they (the school or whoever needed it) said it must be in ENGLISH. I mean most birth certificates have the same info on it; it wouldn't take a genius to figure out what was on it even if it was in Spanish. I guess the ignorant asshole who demanded it be in English must have thought she was one of those dang furriners, since she was born in PR.

Myself, I do not have a certified copy of mine. It lacks the official embossed seal. It is a simple matter for me to get a copy but if I needed it for this November's election, I am sure I couldn't get it in time. So they I couldn't vote if that were the case.

Why should I or anyone ever have to prove citizenship, except maybe when leaving or entering the country or getting a passport or some jobs? Most of the time we shouldn't. It is only a matter of time before the Gestapo start asking us randomly for "papers, please".

[Realityhack]

112. Another question is...

does the idiot checking the birth cert. have ANY way of telling if its real?

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. We had a great discussion on this last night.

Lots of interesting points on both sides of the issue. Of course, I come down solidly on the "human rights are not to be limited or restricted" camp.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2175727

If it is legal to require ID to vote, it is legal to require ID for any other right of citizenship, such as free assembly. Think about that.

[ShortnFiery]

53. Dumb-Ass Congress!

Although I've held a clearance and have served in the USA Military as an Officer, I can look forward to a full body cavity search when my government ID card has my ARABIC COUNTRY Place of Birth (in a US Army Clinic). :grr:

It don't matter that my Mom and Dad were born in the Midwest of the USA; or that I have no M.E. Ancestors; or that my father was assigned there for the US Army Corps of Engineers detachment; or that I too (in addition to my father) held a USA Security Clearance and served as an Officer. All that will matter to the Neanderthals that provide security at the Airports, et. al.. is
where I was born. :grr: :nuke:

Damn, I'm never going to fly after 2008. The mere thought of dealing with power mad security agents is frightening. :scared: And here my mother thought it would be so "cool" and "exotic" to have me born in a Middle Eastern Country. :shrug:

Thanks Congress, you Paranoid and Fascist Freaks! :puke:

Yes, in 2008 I will be labeled a terrorist. :(

Well, at least I will be able to understand what is like for those from the M.E. who are Naturalized American Citizens.

[MrCoffee]

78. Yawn. Wake me if this dumb-ass bill makes it anywhere near a Senate vote

Which it most definately won't.

Why are we getting up in arms about Henry Hyde's latest aborted brain-fart?