Showing ID to Vote

[AndyDufresne]

I'd like to see the logic behind the voter identification laws saving 1 million dollars.

TGD, I've done the maths for you. Can you check my work?




--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

Most, if not all, conservative Republicans like to point out the unconstitutionality of various items. Anti-gun laws is a great example. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms. Many proponents of anti-gun laws point to the benefits of not having guns out there. Opponents of anti-gun laws (conservative Republicans) yell "Constitution!" So in the conservative's mind the potential benefit of "saving lives" does not outweigh the Constitution. I count myself in that group.

And yet when we come to voting laws, we hear one side screaming "Constitution!" and it's the not the conservative side. It's the liberal side. The government cannot impede or make more difficult the right to vote. It's in the Constitution. And yet most conservative Republicans do not find it troubling to support voter identification laws. In the conservative's mind the potential benefit of making sure the two cases a year of voter fraud not happening outweighs the Constitution.

So, from a pure constitutional perspective, we find such ridiculous hypocrisy it makes me a little sick. Nevermind the taxpayer cost associated with this sort of program, which should cause any self-respecting conservative to think twice about voter identification laws.

But to answer your questions:

(1) If it's even one person, it outweighs any perceived need for voter identification laws.
(2) This is irrelevant.

Voter ID has been held up as Constitutional in many states....not just mine. The decisions were 7-2 and 8-1 here.

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

I don't think there has been a constitutional challenge to voter identification laws that was heard by the US Supreme Court. No offense to state courts or circuit courts, but they don't really have final say.

I'd like to see the logic behind the voter identification laws saving 1 million dollars.

nor are state supreme courts meaningless....

I only stated that they claim we will save 1 million, and that we will have to wait to see if they are right or wrong. I'm sure there are claims on the other side that it will cost billions...

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to do two things.

(1) I'm going to put this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v ... tion_Board

(2) I'm going to apologize. Sorry PS.

[jimboston]

Why is this a debate?

Let me ask opponents of Voted ID Laws a question or two...

1) How many of the potentially disenfranchised people actually vote?

(... by potentially disenfranchised I mean those people so downtrodden by society that getting a picture ID would be an enormous burden.)

2) How many of these people (those who do vote, but wouldn't be able to because of onerous voter ID laws) take any time to pay attention to any of the issues in a given election?

Most, if not all, conservative Republicans like to point out the unconstitutionality of various items. Anti-gun laws is a great example. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms. Many proponents of anti-gun laws point to the benefits of not having guns out there. Opponents of anti-gun laws (conservative Republicans) yell "Constitution!" So in the conservative's mind the potential benefit of "saving lives" does not outweigh the Constitution. I count myself in that group.

And yet when we come to voting laws, we hear one side screaming "Constitution!" and it's the not the conservative side. It's the liberal side. The government cannot impede or make more difficult the right to vote. It's in the Constitution. And yet most conservative Republicans do not find it troubling to support voter identification laws. In the conservative's mind the potential benefit of making sure the two cases a year of voter fraud not happening outweighs the Constitution.

So, from a pure constitutional perspective, we find such ridiculous hypocrisy it makes me a little sick. Nevermind the taxpayer cost associated with this sort of program, which should cause any self-respecting conservative to think twice about voter identification laws.

But to answer your questions:

(1) If it's even one person, it outweighs any perceived need for voter identification laws.
(2) This is irrelevant.

1) I disagree with you... but that doesn't answer the question. I don't think this 10% (if it's that high) votes ever... and I don't think they even know there is a debate going on. Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting, they just make sure people are who they say they are.

I am opposed to (most) gun restrictions... but I do think think that background checks are a good idea, and I do think you should have to present an ID when you want to buy a gun. As i stated in an earlier post (which everyone ignored) there are many things that require having a picture ID. Buying guns should be one... and so shouldn't voting.

2) It is irrelevant... but the answer would be interesting nonetheless.

[Woodruff]

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

How is it possible for a Voter ID law to save money? Where is the savings coming from?

It seems to me that it will probably be almost as negatively profitable as the program to drug-test welfare recipients in Florida...that was supposed to save massive dollars too.

[Juan_Bottom]

People do need ID to register to Vote, just like they need an ID to buy a Gun.
Problem solved, nobody disenfranchised.

In Pennsylvania it was understood that as many as 750,000 people wouldn't be able to vote because of their unconstitutional voter ID laws.

[Woodruff]

Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting, they just make sure people are who they say they are.

This is disengenuous at best. In order for these laws to "not prevent people from voting", someone without an ID would still be allowed to vote. Which means the law does absolutely nothing, which certainly is not true. If someone shows up to vote without an ID, they WILL be prevented from voting.

[jimboston]

Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting, they just make sure people are who they say they are.

This is disengenuous at best. In order for these laws to "not prevent people from voting", someone without an ID would still be allowed to vote. Which means the law does absolutely nothing, which certainly is not true. If someone shows up to vote without an ID, they WILL be prevented from voting.

If a person isn't registered he/she is also "prevented" from voting.

I have no problem with making photo ID's free.

The idea that someone can just show up and vote is / should be a thing of the past when everyone knew their neighbors.

[Woodruff]

Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting, they just make sure people are who they say they are.

This is disengenuous at best. In order for these laws to "not prevent people from voting", someone without an ID would still be allowed to vote. Which means the law does absolutely nothing, which certainly is not true. If someone shows up to vote without an ID, they WILL be prevented from voting.

If a person isn't registered he/she is also "prevented" from voting.

An ID is already required to register to vote, at least everywhere I've lived.

[thegreekdog]

People do need ID to register to Vote, just like they need an ID to buy a Gun.
Problem solved, nobody disenfranchised.

In Pennsylvania it was understood that as many as 750,000 people wouldn't be able to vote because of their unconstitutional voter ID laws.

According to the case I wikied, it's not unconstitutional.

[Juan_Bottom]

The battle from just this year. I thought that the bundle of laws were tossed out as a violation of Pennsylvania's State Constitution. But I could be wrong.

[Woodruff]

People do need ID to register to Vote, just like they need an ID to buy a Gun.
Problem solved, nobody disenfranchised.

In Pennsylvania it was understood that as many as 750,000 people wouldn't be able to vote because of their unconstitutional voter ID laws.

According to the case I wikied, it's not unconstitutional.

Different case - yours was in Indiana.

[thegreekdog]

People do need ID to register to Vote, just like they need an ID to buy a Gun.
Problem solved, nobody disenfranchised.

In Pennsylvania it was understood that as many as 750,000 people wouldn't be able to vote because of their unconstitutional voter ID laws.

According to the case I wikied, it's not unconstitutional.

Different case - yours was in Indiana.

Depending upon how the Pennsylvania law was written (i.e. if it was modeled after the Indiana law), it could also be constitutional under this case. Certainly if the law goes to court on constitutional grounds, the state will cite heavily to the Indiana case and it would be persuasive if not outright authority.

[jimboston]

Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting, they just make sure people are who they say they are.

This is disengenuous at best. In order for these laws to "not prevent people from voting", someone without an ID would still be allowed to vote. Which means the law does absolutely nothing, which certainly is not true. If someone shows up to vote without an ID, they WILL be prevented from voting.

If a person isn't registered he/she is also "prevented" from voting.

An ID is already required to register to vote, at least everywhere I've lived.

Nope.

At least not here in Mass. You have to just show "proof of residency"... which can be in the form of something like an electric bill or phone bill with your name and address. No picture ID. I once tried showing my license and the woman refused... told me "it's not required, put it away".

[stahrgazer]

An ID is already required to register to vote, at least everywhere I've lived.

Nope.

At least not here in Mass. You have to just show "proof of residency"... which can be in the form of something like an electric bill or phone bill with your name and address. No picture ID. I once tried showing my license and the woman refused... told me "it's not required, put it away".

http://www.longdistancevoter.org/massac ... GOyEFGqjTo

Do I need to provide ID when I register to vote?

If you are registering for the first time in Massachusetts, you must include a copy of your ID with your voter registration form. If you forget, you'll need to provide ID the first time you vote in person or by absentee ballot. Acceptable identification includes: a copy of a current and valid photo identification OR a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows your name and Massachusetts address.

Do I need to provide ID when I vote by absentee ballot?

You do not need to provide ID if you've already voted in Massachusetts at least once. If you are a first time Massachusetts and you did not include a copy of your ID with your voter registration form, you must include a copy with your absentee ballot application. Acceptable identification includes: a current and valid photo identification and Massachusetts address OR a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows your name and address.

[Phatscotty]

Voter ID laws do not prevent people from voting, they just make sure people are who they say they are.

This is disengenuous at best. In order for these laws to "not prevent people from voting", someone without an ID would still be allowed to vote. Which means the law does absolutely nothing, which certainly is not true. If someone shows up to vote without an ID, they WILL be prevented from voting.

If a person isn't registered he/she is also "prevented" from voting.

An ID is already required to register to vote, at least everywhere I've lived.

Nope.

At least not here in Mass. You have to just show "proof of residency"... which can be in the form of something like an electric bill or phone bill with your name and address. No picture ID. I once tried showing my license and the woman refused... told me "it's not required, put it away".

shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

In my state, all you have to do is verbally vouch for someone and say they are your neighbor. It's total bullshit, and our current laws are crafted around cheating, much like Pennsylvania;s used to be.

http://www.mnparticipationproject.org/v ... s/vouching

If you or someone you know does not have the appropriate documents for Election Day Registration, someone they know who lives in the same precinct and is registered to vote can vouch for them. Vouching is one of the ways that a voter can prove their residence in a precinct, (REALLY ) for the purposes of registering to vote on Election Day. Vouching entails having the voucher sign a legal oath that they personally know that the resident resides in the precinct.
Vouching for a Neighbor

If you or someone you know was unable to pre-register and does not have the proper proof of residence, an individual that resides in the same precinct and is registered to vote is able to vouch for them. The voucher must go to the polls with the individual and assert this in writing under oath. This must be based on their own personal knowledge of their eligibility to vote and their residence. Vouching for a voter based upon anything less than personal knowledge is perjury, which is a felony. An individual can vouch for up to 15 individuals. A person can vouch for someone else even if they registered on Election Day; however, not if they were vouched for by someone.For more information please visit the Secretary of State (SOROS!) or call 1-800-600-VOTE.
Residential Facility Employee Vouching

In Minnesota, employees of qualifying residential facilities are able to vouch for the proof of residence of the residents in their facility.

Yes, we really do need Voter ID!

[Juan_Bottom]

‘Jim Crow’-Type Voter-Suppression Laws to Bar 10 Million Latinos from Voting, Study finds

You don't have to read it. It's just here.

[Woodruff]

No one seems to have responded to this...

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

If this was such a problem in 2000, why is it that these laws are primarily being pushed just now, starting about nine months prior to a Presidential election? It literally smacks of intent to defraud.

Nor this...

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

How is it possible for a Voter ID law to save money? Where is the savings coming from?

It seems to me that it will probably be almost as negatively profitable as the program to drug-test welfare recipients in Florida...that was supposed to save massive dollars too.

[Ray Rider]

You guys seriously don't have voter ID laws down there? Man, you guys should join us in the 21st century! Or remain in your old corrupt ways, IDC

[PLAYER57832]

No one seems to have responded to this...

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

If this was such a problem in 2000, why is it that these laws are primarily being pushed just now, starting about nine months prior to a Presidential election? It literally smacks of intent to defraud.

Nor this...

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

How is it possible for a Voter ID law to save money? Where is the savings coming from?

It seems to me that it will probably be almost as negatively profitable as the program to drug-test welfare recipients in Florida...that was supposed to save massive dollars too.

I believe the answers are rather obvious, but the person to whom you addressed them tends to avoid answers that don't fit his political views.

[Nobunaga]

Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.

... How did all those black folks vote, with those oppressive new ID laws? Hard to fathom how they managed.

... This poll is showing very strong support for ID laws - reflecting the nation as a whole.

... Massive citizen support, no viable, facts-based case against... nothing much more needs to be said.

...

[Woodruff]

No one seems to have responded to this...

Player, in your opinion, in the wake of 2000 election and the competitiveness and passion of today's politics, how would you describe our election process today? Very tight and accurate? Very loose and corrupt? Somewhere in between? Where?

If this was such a problem in 2000, why is it that these laws are primarily being pushed just now, starting about nine months prior to a Presidential election? It literally smacks of intent to defraud.

Nor this...

Also, it is possible that the rule, at least in my state, will pay for itself, and is projected to save 1 million dollars. Of course that is a political projection, but it's one we can measure down the road after we pass and implement Voter ID.

How is it possible for a Voter ID law to save money? Where is the savings coming from?

It seems to me that it will probably be almost as negatively profitable as the program to drug-test welfare recipients in Florida...that was supposed to save massive dollars too.

Phatscotty?

[Phatscotty]

Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 — the first presidential election held after the state’s photo-ID law went into effect — than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history — nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.

... How did all those black folks vote, with those oppressive new ID laws? Hard to fathom how they managed.

... This poll is showing very strong support for ID laws - reflecting the nation as a whole.

... Massive citizen support, no viable, facts-based case against... nothing much more needs to be said.

...

Voter ID is one of the few things that a super majority of American's agree on. And that is why it's under attack by Obama and the Democrats.

Also, voter participation has increased in EVERY state that implemented Voter ID....which shows that the Progressive's claims are BS

[Symmetry]

Also, voter participation has increased in EVERY state that implemented Voter ID....which shows that the Progressive's claims are BS

Wouldn't that indicate that the allegations of widespread voter fraud justifying these laws were completely false? What happened to all those fraudulent votes?

Of course, I'd be interested in seeing where you got your data from.

[AndyDufresne]

I'm for more stringent voter ID laws. The following requirements must be instituted immediately to ensure the safety of our democracy from rampant and widespread illegal voting:

1. A notarized document with my photo signed by 2,000 people attesting to the validity of me being me.
2. Birth and ancestry records going back at least 4 generations, proving that I was indeed born.
3. DNA testing to prove that I am of human ancestry, and not an alien.


--Andy