Voter ID Law

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

You're citing a piece, which says the voter ID laws are completely unnecessary but constitutional.

I'm well aware. Which should make the point I cited it for - that it does not depress turnout - all the more credible, since it obviously isn't coming from a source biased in favor of Voter ID. (That, of course, was the reason I picked that article as the source for the factual claim. Glad you noticed).

And their argument that this doesn't have a disenfranchising affect is - "well democratic turnout for the first black President was high in these two states, so -".

Uh, no. Try reading it again:

Democrats say this reflected enthusiasm for Barack Obama, which is true but beside the point. The argument against strict photo-ID laws is that significant numbers of people who want to vote can’t obtain the required identification. If that were so, the Democratic vote should have increased less in Indiana and Georgia than in states without such laws. In fact, it was comparable.

If voter ID laws depress turnout, then the increase in turnout in states with voter ID should be less than in states without it.

(In other words, if "2008 election turnout", generally, was "normal + 10", then in states with voter ID turnout should have been less than "normal + 10"; perhaps still above "normal" (to reflect the increase in enthusiasm) but less than the amount above normal than in states without Voter ID (to reflect the depressive impact of voter ID)).

In reality, though, the increase was identical, meaning Voter ID had no identifiable impact on turnout.

Of course, it's possible that voters who wouldn't have been sufficiently motivated in a typical election to get the ID needed to vote were sufficiently motivated in 2008, and in a less "historic" year there would be a depressive effect - but if that's the case, then all it shows is that the issue is with the voters, not the law.

[southparkcpa]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

So you're willing to take away certain citizens right to vote until they accept your favor?

And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that supporters of a welfare state are vote buying. I don't and have never needed any state assistance of any kind, and I support it because it's the moral thing to do. Doesn't mean we can't reform good ideas or eliminate waste, but the social welfare system is not a cynical ploy to acquire votes, rather a measure of decency and community.

How do you propose we verify a voters right to vote without ID?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

So you're willing to take away certain citizens right to vote until they accept your favor?

A false argument. A requirement for identification does not remove any rights if the abillity to obtain an ID is not limited by race, gender, etc. or in other ways descriminatory. The same way registration to vote does not remove your right. Or filling in forms to buy a gun does not remove your right.

Being poor or unwilling to obtain an ID, especially if (as many of us support) the ID is offered free to the poor, is not a valid protected class form of descrimination under current civil rights laws.

If one were consistent in the anti-ID belief, they'd also be against voter registration requirements, as not being registered also is a limit on voting rights. And they'sbe against against any gun buying limitations whatsoever, especially requirements to identify oneself whilst buying a gun, for the same core reasons. And they'd be against speech limitations or qualifiers of any kind, including donations to political causes, as all limit the right to free speech. Or religios limitations, etc, etc, etc.

Clearly, even our most basic rights have limitations and regulations. It's a question of what current society deems to be appropriate regulation of that right, to ensure the right is enjoyed by those who posess that right, and limited for those who do not posses that right. Clearly, there is some portion fo the population who feels that the right to vote can and should require the voter simply identify themselves in a form other than simply "taking their word on it".

How about a compromise. Election Day voting does not require an ID. But to register to vote (which is not voting itself), you must prove you have the RIGHT to register to vote, and prove who you are. Just like you would for registering for any other service or right provided for or regulated by the Federal Government.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

So you're willing to take away certain citizens right to vote until they accept your favor?

And I fundamentally disagree with the notion that supporters of a welfare state are vote buying. I don't and have never needed any state assistance of any kind, and I support it because it's the moral thing to do. Doesn't mean we can't reform good ideas or eliminate waste, but the social welfare system is not a cynical ploy to acquire votes, rather a measure of decency and community.

I support each State and local government providing a standard that their citizens choice to live by to ensure that their citizens vote. If the standard isn't overly discriminatory or can't be attained I would be against that. I don't believe that's the case with most of these laws.

I both support forms of the welfare state and understand that politicians are buying votes. They are not mutually exclusive.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Only if you're cross referencing voter rolls with death certificates, which isn't done because the systems don't really interact (if it was done, it would be better done in advance of the election). There's no real incentive to do it after the fact, since you can't invalidate the vote anyway (no way to identify what the fraudulent voter did).





Show me the study that's done that and found no incidents, and I'll agree. But nobody is spending money on it, because there's no incentive to do so. And in-person voter fraud is not only about dead voters.

But seriously, you asked me why I thought in-person voter fraud would be difficult to detect absent ID, and I've shown you actual evidence of in-person voter fraud going completely undetected . . . and you ignore it to make side points.

Tell me - short of asking for ID, what could those poll workers have done to prevent that particular fraud?

Until you can come up with an alternative, requiring ID to vote - just as you need it to bank, make various purchase, drive, etc. - is just basic common sense, regardless of the impact or non-impact on voters.



There is no risk when the odds of being caught are infinitesimal, and most people don't even know what the punishment is.





No, it is not "assuming guilt" - any more than requiring ID to buy alcohol, gamble, smoke, bank, get on an airplane, etc. is "assuming guilt." It is a basic prerequisite: establishing that you are who you claim to be.


Then they should get a photo ID. Again, experience shows it does not depress turnout. And even if it did, DI would be ok with that, because it is such a bare-minimum responsibility requirement that anyone discouraged from voting by that requirement have only themselves to blame.

This is restricting the most fundamental right in our country - to participate in our democracy - without just cause. Google online how many times Mr Okeefe and ProjectVeritas has been denied or shut down trying that exact same stunt on the youtube video you posted.

Googled it, found nothing. Feel free to link your own sources.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...raud_stunt.php

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04...ill-not/185858

James O'Keefe's Project Veritas has unveiled the latest chapter in its ongoing "voter fraud investigation": a video that purports to show a young man nearly obtaining the ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder. Like O'Keefe's past "voter fraud" videos, however, this video fails to show actual voter fraud being committed, and it doesn't prove the existence of a widespread conspiracy to throw an election. That's because both are extremely rare.

The video shows the man entering a polling place in Washington, D.C., then cuts to the man asking a poll worker, "Do you have an Eric Holder?" After the O'Keefe associate confirms Holder's address, which is censored, the poll worker offers him the voter roll and says, "Please sign your name there." The fake Eric Holder then says he left his ID in the car and leaves.

The video's accompanying blog post on Breitbart.com claims that Project Veritas has "proven" that "voter fraud is easy and simple -- and may be increasingly common in the absence of voter ID laws." A Daily Caller article on the video claimed that Holder "could have himself been disenfranchised by white men because there is no federal voter ID law to protect voters in D.C." from fraud.

This video doesn't prove any of these things. What it shows is a man coming close to committing a serious crime. But even if the man had fraudulently cast a vote under Eric Holder's name, D.C. and federal laws provide a number of protections against fraudulent votes.

First of all, if the imposter had fraudulently cast Holder's ballot, and the real Eric Holder then had shown up to vote and been told his name was already crossed off the list, the real Holder almost certainly could have still voted. Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, any voter who is told by an "election official" that he or she is "not eligible to vote" must be allowed to "cast a provisional ballot."

As a Washington Post blog post about the O'Keefe video states:

For instance, if a fraudster actually did go vote for Holder, and then Holder himself went to vote later in the day, he would discover he could no longer cast a regular ballot but would have to fill out a special ballot.

Special ballots are always counted, regardless of whether they could affect the outcome of the election ... Each special ballot is subject to inspection and challenge from the candidates. During that process, election officials can look at public records -- including signatures on poll books and voter registration forms -- to determine whether a ballot is genuine. If fraud is suspected, the Board of Elections and Ethics can refer the case to federal prosecutors for further investigation.

D.C. law also provides strict penalties for anyone knowingly casting a fraudulent vote: It's a crime punishable by up to $10,000 in fines or up to 5 years in prison. Federal law provides for similar penalties.

And as we have documented, actual voter fraud is extremely rare. The Brennan Center for Justice (h/t New York magazine) wrote in a 2006 policy brief:

[E]vidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The New York Times reported in April 2007 that between 2002 and 2007, about 120 people were charged and 86 convinced for voter fraud -- nationwide.

As a Department of Justice official told Talking Points Memo: "It's no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones."

Experts have also pointed out that trying to steal an election with O'Keefe's strategy would be almost impossible. After O'Keefe's last "voter fraud" stunt in New Hampshire, in which several of his associates tried to get elections officials to offer them ballots under the names of dead people, experts noted it would be very difficult to change the outcome of an election with a handful of fraudulent votes. Talking Points Memo quoted election law expert Rick Hasen as saying: "Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And who would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the outcome of the election and (2) remain undetected?"

And a New York magazine blog post on the latest O'Keefe video noted:

The question is whether anyone should really care. Yes, if you wanted to, you could risk five years in prison and a $10,000 fine to vote for someone else, but we're not sure why you would, since a single vote, or even a few votes, will never make a difference. (Okay, almost never.)

[...]

There are a lot of disruptive things that people are capable of doing that they nevertheless don't do, and which we consequently don't need to freak out about. Someone could, hypothetically, go to a local supermarket and lick all the apples, just to savor the essence of apple without coughing up 30 cents. That doesn't mean we should lock up all the apples behind a plexiglass barrier.

In spite of all this evidence, however, right-wing media routinely drum up phony or baseless cases of voter fraud, which they then use to rally support for restrictive voter ID laws.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

I'm well aware. Which should make the point I cited it for - that it does not depress turnout - all the more credible, since it obviously isn't coming from a source biased in favor of Voter ID. (That, of course, was the reason I picked that article as the source for the factual claim. Glad you noticed).



Uh, no. Try reading it again:



If voter ID laws depress turnout, then the increase in turnout in states with voter ID should be less than in states without it.

(In other words, if "2008 election turnout", generally, was "normal + 10", then in states with voter ID turnout should have been less than "normal + 10"; perhaps still above "normal" (to reflect the increase in enthusiasm) but less than the amount above normal than in states without Voter ID (to reflect the depressive impact of voter ID)).

In reality, though, the increase was identical, meaning Voter ID had no identifiable impact on turnout.

Of course, it's possible that voters who wouldn't have been sufficiently motivated in a typical election to get the ID needed to vote were sufficiently motivated in 2008, and in a less "historic" year there would be a depressive effect - but if that's the case, then all it shows is that the issue is with the voters, not the law.

If your argument is that these laws are necessary, and you cite an article saying they're unnecessary - AND btw, admits that the 08 election was unique in it's circumstances (first black President) - then I will continue to challenge the merits of passing a law that could potentially exclude 10% of the registered voter population from participating in the 2012 election.

If we took that article completely, more accurately the two conclusions at the end we're focused on, at face value - i.e. both sides are wrong, and in fact we don't need these laws, nor will they suppress voter turnout - then why the F pass the law in the first place?

Why pass laws we don't need? And why does the leading GOP legislator in Pennsylvania posit that these laws will win his state for Romney?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...raud_stunt.php

So - it's a link that shows that relatives of the person whose name was used are upset. And that demonstrates what, exactly?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/04...ill-not/185858

Similarly not helpful to your argument.

It points out that the individual in the video (who was looking to demonstrate that the fraud could be accomplished, not to actually perpetrate it) did not actually vote for Holder. So?

It points out that even had the guy voted, Holder could still fill out a "special ballot". Again, so? The primary problem with voter fraud isn't disenfranchisement of legitimate voters by "using up" their vote, it is that the fraudulent vote would be counted. And had the guy voted and the real Eric Holder shown and voted later, the fraudulent vote would still be counted - because the vote is anonymous, and therefore could not be removed from the pool.

I suppose that instead of voter ID, you could address that problem by making the vote open, rather than anonymous. But that seems like an obviously worse solution.

The rest of the article is just a rehash of the "we don't need voter ID because we haven't caught many people committing fraud" argument and a listing of the stiff penalties for the crime (which are irrelevant if nobody needs to fear getting caught).

I'm still waiting for a link to any source for O'Keefe's stunts actually failing - a poll worker saying "hey wait, you're not Mr. X, you can't have his ballot" - which is what you asked me to look for, and I said I couldn't find.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

A false argument. A requirement for identification does not remove any rights if the abillity to obtain an ID is not limited by race, gender, etc. or in other ways descriminatory. The same way registration to vote does not remove your right. Or filling in forms to buy a gun does not remove your right.

Being poor or unwilling to obtain an ID, especially if (as many of us support) the ID is offered free to the poor, is not a valid protected class form of descrimination under current civil rights laws.

If one were consistent in the anti-ID belief, they'd also be against voter registration requirements, as not being registered also is a limit on voting rights. And they'sbe against against any gun buying limitations whatsoever, especially requirements to identify oneself whilst buying a gun, for the same core reasons. And they'd be against speech limitations or qualifiers of any kind, including donations to political causes, as all limit the right to free speech. Or religios limitations, etc, etc, etc.

Clearly, even our most basic rights have limitations and regulations. It's a question of what current society deems to be appropriate regulation of that right, to ensure the right is enjoyed by those who posess that right, and limited for those who do not posses that right. Clearly, there is some portion fo the population who feels that the right to vote can and should require the voter simply identify themselves in a form other than simply "taking their word on it".

How about a compromise. Election Day voting does not require an ID. But to register to vote (which is not voting itself), you must prove you have the RIGHT to register to vote, and prove who you are. Just like you would for registering for any other service or right provided for or regulated by the Federal Government.

If you support opening "come and get your government ID for free" offices opening up in every major city of every state that passed these laws, then perhaps I would see your initial point.

But as to the last paragraph, I don't quite understand, as isn't that already what voter registration is?

Acquiring a passport and/or license is not free. I support registering to vote, because that is the only line of defense needed. If I walk in to the public school near me and walk up to the check-in voter table and find out someone already voted for me, I have legal recourse in the long term and in the short term, my vote will be taken via special ballot until the matter is settled.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

So - it's a link that shows that relatives of the person whose name was used are upset. And that demonstrates what, exactly?


Similarly not helpful to your argument.

It points out that the individual in the video (who was looking to demonstrate that the fraud could be accomplished, not to actually perpetrate it) did not actually vote for Holder. So?

It points out that even had the guy voted, Holder could still fill out a "special ballot". Again, so? The primary problem with voter fraud isn't disenfranchisement of legitimate voters by "using up" their vote, it is that the fraudulent vote would be counted. And had the guy voted and the real Eric Holder shown and voted later, the fraudulent vote would still be counted - because the vote is anonymous, and therefore could not be removed from the pool.

I suppose that instead of voter ID, you could address that problem by making the vote open, rather than anonymous. But that seems like an obviously worse solution.

The rest of the article is just a rehash of the "we don't need voter ID because we haven't caught many people committing fraud" argument and a listing of the stiff penalties for the crime (which are irrelevant if nobody needs to fear getting caught).

I'm still waiting for a link to any source for O'Keefe's stunts actually failing - a poll worker saying "hey wait, you're not Mr. X, you can't have his ballot" - which is what you asked me to look for, and I said I couldn't find.

The first article showed the failsafe, someone was being impersonated, and that person received a call at their home informing them of possible voter fraud.

The second details what Holder's recourse if he was impersonated.

While in the moment, for a quick video, O'Keefe might be able get away with impersonating a voter, both instances show the system in place would have prevented O'Keefe's from successfully stealing someone else's vote.

[PlumberKhan]

Case closed.

In a state with no prior cases of voter fraud, from the horse's mouth you here the reason why the law was signed.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If your argument is that these laws are necessary, and you cite an article saying they're unnecessary - AND btw, admits that the 08 election was unique in it's circumstances (first black President) - then I will continue to challenge the merits of passing a law that could potentially exclude 10% of the registered voter population from participating in the 2012 election.

You've managed to entirely miss the point. I wasn't citing the article as evidence Voter ID is a good idea (even if it had fully supported Voter ID I'm not sure why saying "look, this article agrees with me" would be persuasive), so whether I agree with its conclusions is irrelevant. I'm citing it for the facts contained therein - facts you still haven't remotely engaged with.

If we took that article completely, more accurately the two conclusions at the end we're focused on, at face value - i.e. both sides are wrong, and in fact we don't need these laws, nor will they suppress voter turnout - then why the F pass the law in the first place? Why pass laws we don't need?

Because while neither I nor you can disagree with the facts cited in the article (i.e. there have been few reported cases of in-person voter fraud and Voter ID laws don't suppress turnout), we can disagree about the implications of those facts. As Senator Moynihan famously put it: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

And the fact of the matter is, nothing in the statistics on reported cases of in-person voter fraud that I can see changes the fact that Voter ID is the only way to rationally prevent in-person voter fraud. The reality is, the low numbers of reported cases can result from two possibilities:

1) There are infinitesimally few attempts at in-person voter fraud (significantly less than by other methods); or

2) There are similar numbers of attempts as other methods, but infinitesimally fewer of those making the attempt get caught, and the successful attempts are therefore unreported.

Number 2 seems more likely. But even if it wasn't more likely, the fact that it is a possibility makes eliminating it a reasonable and appropriate thing to do. Voter ID puts a negligible and easily overcome barrier on voting (much like registration does, which I don't see you railing against) and, based on experience, has no harmful effects. "Why the F" not do it?

And why does the leading GOP legislator in Pennsylvania posit that these laws will win his state for Romney?

Because he's an idiot? Because he believes something to be true that is demonstrably not true? Because he is secretly a Democrat who was planted in the GOP years ago specifically to do something like this? Because he went off his medication? Because he's actually a robot remote controlled by George Soros?

You can pick your rationale, choosing from those options or any more or less believable choice you prefer.

It doesn't matter to me, because - as the Pennsylvania Court correctly determined - it's really irrelevant to the constitutionality (addressed by the court) and wisdom (irrelevant to the court) of the law.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If you support opening "come and get your government ID for free" offices opening up in every major city of every state that passed these laws, then perhaps I would see your initial point.

But as to the last paragraph, I don't quite understand, as isn't that already what voter registration is?

Let me understand - you don't mind laws that say you need an ID to register . . . but you vehemently oppose laws that say you need an ID to vote? What happened to the ID in the interim?

Acquiring a passport and/or license is not free. I support registering to vote, because that is the only line of defense needed. If I walk in to the public school near me and walk up to the check-in voter table and find out someone already voted for me, I have legal recourse in the long term and in the short term, my vote will be taken via special ballot until the matter is settled.

While the fraudulent vote will still count.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If you support opening "come and get your government ID for free" offices opening up in every major city of every state that passed these laws, then perhaps I would see your initial point.

Personally, I support a free state issues ID for those who cannot afford one, as I've mentioned to PK when he raised that issue (many times now).

But no, I wouldn't force every state to have an office in "every major city". Citizens have responsabillities as well as rights. Getting an ID to vote is not an unreasonable responsabillity.

But as to the last paragraph, I don't quite understand, as isn't that already what voter registration is?

No. No ID is required to register to vote, at least in my State. I recall, a long while agao now, the usual folks circulating their "Register to Vote" stuff at the HFSetival at RFK Stadium. No ID checks, and many many for-the-lols names written in by drunk kids enjoying the show.

Liek I said, if registering required an ID Check and verification of legitimacy, every election not just once-and-done, then I could live with that and no check on election day. Still a myriad of very easy ways to beat such a system of course, but it'd be start.

Acquiring a passport and/or license is not free. I support registering to vote, because that is the only line of defense needed. If I walk in to the public school near me and walk up to the check-in voter table and find out someone already voted for me, I have legal recourse in the long term and in the short term, my vote will be taken via special ballot until the matter is settled.

It's funny, in a sad way, that the party (and it's supporters) who can always find more ways to regulate and control our lives, businesses and activity.....suddenly come to Libertarian Jesus when it comes to this issue.

There are literally millions of pages of Federal regulation of less valid support than ID checks would be. Including no shortage of teh recent multi-thousand page Obamacare act, and it multi-ten-thousands of pages regulations.

But something as simple as "To vote, show an ID" is suddenly the worst breach of human rights ever by a cruel and evil State trying to TAKE AWAY YOUR VOTE.

Frankly, I cannot take seriously anyone who would be against a simple, basic, ID check at the the time of Voting, especially from a typical pro-big Governemnt, pro-regulation liberal. Nor anyone who would make the claim that minorities are somehow less capable of getting to a state office (or online, via mail if some states, I believe) and aquiring for themselves an ID.

Somehow we can provide no end of welfare support to our poor people with so little oversight it's almost funny.......but expecting those same people to pony up for a $5.00 ID, or even simply to get to an office to claim a FREE ID, in a day and age when almost everything requires a picture ID, well, thats asking too much.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

The first article showed the failsafe, someone was being impersonated, and that person received a call at their home informing them of possible voter fraud.

I think you're misreading the article; there was no call to the person's home:

Bolton told TPM that one of the polling watchers informed her that someone had tried to vote on behalf of her son when she went to vote. The poll watchers told her the individual acted weird and nervous. Her son returned to the polling station to vote later in the day. She found out about the Project Veritas video after her sister saw it on Facebook.

In other words, the guy would have been allowed to vote, despite poll worker suspicions that it was a fraud. Her son's vote likely would have counted, but so would the fraudulent vote.

Again, that is not a demonstration that O'Keefe "failed".

The second details what Holder's recourse if he was impersonated.

While in the moment, for a quick video, O'Keefe might be able get away with impersonating a voter, both instances show the system in place would have prevented O'Keefe's from successfully stealing someone else's vote.

And if "vote theft" (i.e. poor innocent victim X doesn't get to vote because someone already voted for them) were the problem, that would be relevant.

The problem is that the fraudulent vote would also count.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

I think you're misreading the article; there was no call to the person's home:

You're correct, I misread that. Nevertheless, though, she was informed that someone could have committed fraud and impersonated her son.

Originally Posted by doggin94it

In other words, the guy would have been allowed to vote, despite poll worker suspicions that it was a fraud. Her son's vote likely would have counted, but so would the fraudulent vote.

Again, that is not a demonstration that O'Keefe "failed".

Special ballots are always counted, regardless of whether they could affect the outcome of the election ... Each special ballot is subject to inspection and challenge from the candidates. During that process, election officials can look at public records -- including signatures on poll books and voter registration forms -- to determine whether a ballot is genuine. If fraud is suspected, the Board of Elections and Ethics can refer the case to federal prosecutors for further investigation.

Originally Posted by doggin94it

And if "vote theft" (i.e. poor innocent victim X doesn't get to vote because someone already voted for them) were the problem, that would be relevant.

The problem is that the fraudulent vote would also count.

Now granted, I'm about a week into 1L (have my first torts class in a half hour) and I'm not an esquire like you, yet : ), but I suspect once fraud is suspected and the BoEE referred the case to the federal prosecutors, that one fraudulent vote could be nullified?

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Let me understand - you don't mind laws that say you need an ID to register . . . but you vehemently oppose laws that say you need an ID to vote? What happened to the ID in the interim?

If you want to say that from here on out, everybody who registers needs a photo ID, I'm fine with that.

But if you're already registered...

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Now granted, I'm about a week into 1L (have my first torts class in a half hour) and I'm not an esquire like you, yet : ),

Heh - enjoy

Remember, you don't care what the case says, you care why it says it.

but I suspect once fraud is suspected and the BoEE referred the case to the federal prosecutors, that one fraudulent vote could be nullified?

No. Think about it. Does anyone know who you voted for when you went into the ballot box? No.

So if they find out that your vote was fraudulent, can they "nullify it"? No - because they don't know what "it" was.

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If you want to say that from here on out, everybody who registers needs a photo ID, I'm fine with that.

But if you're already registered...

Why do you see that as different? Why isn't that equally a "barrier to voting"? The same population without ID would (theoretically) be impacted.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Personally, I support a free state issues ID for those who cannot afford one, as I've mentioned to PK when he raised that issue (many times now).

But no, I wouldn't force every state to have an office in "every major city". Citizens have responsabillities as well as rights. Getting an ID to vote is not an unreasonable responsabillity.



No. No ID is required to register to vote, at least in my State. I recall, a long while agao now, the usual folks circulating their "Register to Vote" stuff at the HFSetival at RFK Stadium. No ID checks, and many many for-the-lols names written in by drunk kids enjoying the show.

Liek I said, if registering required an ID Check and verification of legitimacy, every election not just once-and-done, then I could live with that and no check on election day. Still a myriad of very easy ways to beat such a system of course, but it'd be start.

It was unclear to me in that post that by saying "prove you have the right to vote" that you meant photo ID upon registration. When I said, don't we already do that upon registration, I thought you meant we verify that you're a real person, sans a requirement of photo ID.

But I'd support a photo ID requirement for all new registration of voters, I simply don't support denying the vote to people who are already registered
and do not have a photo ID.

Originally Posted by Warfish

It's funny, in a sad way, that the party (and it's supporters) who can always find more ways to regulate and control our lives, businesses and activity.....suddenly come to Libertarian Jesus when it comes to this issue.

There are literally millions of pages of Federal regulation of less valid support than ID checks would be. Including no shortage of teh recent multi-thousand page Obamacare act, and it multi-ten-thousands of pages regulations.

But something as simple as "To vote, show an ID" is suddenly the worst breach of human rights ever by a cruel and evil State trying to TAKE AWAY YOUR VOTE.

Frankly, I cannot take seriously anyone who would be against a simple, basic, ID check at the the time of Voting, especially from a typical pro-big Governemnt, pro-regulation liberal. Nor anyone who would make the claim that minorities are somehow less capable of getting to a state office (or online, via mail if some states, I believe) and aquiring for themselves an ID.

Somehow we can provide no end of welfare support to our poor people with so little oversight it's almost funny.......but expecting those same people to pony up for a $5.00 ID, or even simply to get to an office to claim a FREE ID, in a day and age when almost everything requires a picture ID, well, thats asking too much.

Because I want socialized medicine, a higher tax rate on the rich and some public investment in infrastructure, I must want to pass laws about everything, am-I-right?

For ****'s sake, I think aggressive cigarette taxation is bullsh*t, drugs outlawed is ridiculous, not being allowed to dig a hole on a beach is stupid and getting pulled over for not choosing to wear my seatbelt is horsesh*t.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

But I'd support a photo ID requirement for all new registration of voters, I simply don't support denying the vote to people who are already registered and do not have a photo ID.

Then we disagree.

Currently, a friend of mines dog is registered to vote in New York. Or maybe it's not.

Either way, you don't know if it is, can't prove it isn't, won't check to see if it is, and won't ID check someone who shows up to vote for Mr. Fido Wooferstein the IVth.

When your vote is effectively nullified before you even case it, the system is already dead.

Because I want socialized medicine, a higher tax rate on the rich and some public investment in infrastructure, I must want to pass laws about everything, am-I-right?

Yes, someone who is willing to give the Federal Govt. 100% control over all healthcare in the Unites States, but is unwilling to tolerate an Photo ID Check for voting, is not someone I can take seriously.

Forgive me if your wee rant on your Libertarian bonifides leaves me......wanting.

Good luck with Law School. Nice to see a fresh young liberal going into the Law, we certainly don't have enough of you in THAT profession.