I think this is a reasonable explanation of the issues and why photo ID requirements are both problematic and end up suppressing voting: Voter Suppression Returns Voting rights and partisan practices by Alexander Keyssar The new ID laws have almost invariably been sponsored—and promoted—by Republicans, who claim that they are needed to prevent fraud. (In five states, Democratic governors vetoed ID laws passed by Republican legislatures.) Often working from a template provided by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Republican state legislators have insisted that the threat of election fraud is compelling and widespread... Critics of these laws (myself included) have doubted both their necessity and their ability to keep elections honest. The only type of fraud that a strict photo ID rule would actually prevent is voter impersonation fraud (I go to the polls pretending to be you), and, in fact, voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare. In Indiana, where the Republican-dominated legislature passed one of the first new ID laws in 2005 (on a straight party-line vote), there had been no known instances of voter impersonation in the state’s history. In Texas, a strict ID law was enacted last year, although the 2008 and 2010 elections gave rise to only five formal complaints about voter impersonation (out of 13 million votes cast). “There are more UFO and Bigfoot sightings than documented cases of voter impersonation,” quipped one Texas Democrat. Close inspection of the RNLA’s inventory of election fraud, moreover, has found it to be flawed and misleading; most election experts believe that the greatest threat to election integrity comes from absentee ballots—a threat that would not be addressed by the current laws. As importantly, the burdens placed on prospective voters by these ID requirements are not trivial. Men and women who already possess driver’s licenses or passports, of course, will be unaffected. (So too will those in Texas who have permits to carry concealed weapons—since those permits meet the ID requirement.) But citizens who lack such documents will now be obliged to assemble various other pieces of paper (birth certificates, naturalization forms, proof of residence, etc.) and make their way (presumably without a car) to a government office that can issue an official photo ID. Who are these men and women? Studies indicate that they are disproportionately young or elderly, poor, black, and Hispanic; demographically, they are more likely than not to vote Democratic. (In states covered by the Voting Rights Act, such as Texas and South Carolina, the photo ID laws are being challenged by the Department of Justice on the grounds that they disproportionately affect minorities.) The number of people potentially affected is considerable: the Texas secretary of state, for example, estimates that at least 600,000 already registered voters do not possess the documents to cast ballots in November. New York University’s respected Brennan Center for Justice has estimated that a total of more than five million people may lack the requisite identification documents in states that have passed new ID laws. How many people will actually be prevented from casting ballots by these laws in November? What impact will these laws have on participation? The straightforward answer is that none of us (scholars, commentators, politicians) really know... Whether they have a decisive impact on the election or not, the ID laws—as well as other measures designed to inhibit voting—are disturbing, particularly when located against the backdrop of our extended history of conflict over the right to vote and its exercise. Although the United States has long prided itself on being a paragon of democracy, we did not possess anything even approximating universal adult suffrage until the late 1960s—even though universal suffrage is commonly regarded as an essential ingredient of democracy. It took many decades of mobilization and struggle for voting rights in all states to be extended to African Americans, women, Native Americans, and those who lacked property; at different historical moments, some states (suffrage requirements were largely a matter of state law) also excluded “paupers,” the illiterate, the non-English speaking, and those whose jobs made them too transient to meet long residency requirements. Moreover, our history has not been one of steady and inexorable progress toward a more inclusive polity. In the very long run, to be sure, we have become more democratic, but there have been numerous moments in our past when the pendulum swung in the opposite direction: men and women who were enfranchised found themselves losing that right... In addition to this mottled pattern of enfranchisement and disfranchisement, our nation has also witnessed periodic episodes of “voter suppression”—a label frequently invoked by critics to characterize the current wave of photo ID requirements. “Voter suppression” differs conceptually from outright disfranchisement because it does not involve formally disqualifying entire groups of people from the polls; instead, policies or acts of “suppression” seek to prevent, or deter, eligible citizens from exercising their right to vote. Historically, voter suppression seems to arise when organized political forces aim to restrain the political participation of particular groups but cannot, politically or constitutionally, disfranchise them outright. This occurred, of course, in the post-Reconstruction South when white Democratic “redeemers” utilized a variety of techniques (ranging from violence to complex ballot arrangements to poll taxes to orally administered “understanding” tests) to circumvent the Fifteenth Amendment and keep blacks from voting. (Eventually, the suppression of the black vote in the South shaded into, and became, disfranchisement through clever legal innovations such as the all-white Democratic primary.) The phrase “vote suppression” was first widely used in the United States in the 1880s. Legal efforts to place obstacles in the path of legitimate voters also recurred in the North between the Civil War and World War I, targeted primarily at the immigrant workers who were flooding into the country. California and New Jersey, for example, began to require that immigrants present their original, sealed naturalization papers at the polls; various states limited the hours that polling places or registration offices were open (at a time when the 10-hour work day was common), while simultaneously requiring annual registration in large cities but not in towns. In New York, in 1908, authorities sought to winnow out Jewish voters—many of whom were socialists—by designating Saturdays and Yom Kippur as registration days. Such measures were commonly justified as necessary to prevent fraud. The recent wave of ID laws (and their cousins) bears a close resemblance to past episodes of voter suppression, particularly those of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The laws seem tailored less to guarantee the integrity of elections than to achieve a partisan purpose; the targeted constituencies—those directly affected by the laws—tend, once again, to be the poor, the less advantaged, or members of minority groups. It may not be a coincidence that the phrase “voter suppression”—like “vote suppression” in the 1880s—has become a prominent part of our political vocabulary during an era of large-scale immigration and in the wake of a dramatic extension of voting rights to African Americans. This is not to say—the point is important—that there is anything intrinsically wrong with a system of election administration that requires voters to present some type of ID card or photo ID at the polls. Many countries demand that voters present their national identification cards (or special voting cards) when they show up to cast their ballots. Preventing election fraud is a legitimate state function, and, as Rhode Island’s independent governor, Lincoln Chafee, recently observed while signing a new ID measure into law, asking for identification can be “a reasonable request to ensure the accuracy and integrity of our elections.” Requiring voters to present an ID need not be suppressive or discriminatory. The devil is in the details—as is always true with laws that tap the tension between election integrity and access to the ballot box. Like many critics of the recent legislation, I could welcome a photo ID requirement—if it were made clear that it was the responsibility of the state (rather than of private citizens) to insure that every eligible man and woman possessed such documentation. Imagine, for example, a system in which any voter who arrived at the polls without an official ID could apply for one at the polling place (it could be mailed out in subsequent weeks) and then was permitted to cast a provisional ballot (which would be counted if she proved to be eligible). In time, everyone would become equipped with an appropriate ID, and meanwhile no one would be denied the opportunity to vote. (Rhode Island’s new law contains some of these elements.) Such a system would be costly, particularly at the outset, but the expense would be the price of keeping elections democratic while addressing the concerns of those worried about fraud. The state, in effect, would accept responsibility for solving the access problem that its anti-fraud measure had engendered. Alas, that does not seem to be what the sponsors of the current measures have in mind. http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/07/voter-suppression-returns
I don't give a shit if people who don't have IDs can't vote. If you are of voting age and don't have any form of identification there is something wrong in your life and any sane person should not want that persons vote having an effect on their life. Tell me how this makes sense.. Please. People who say this about why no ID is required, "Oh, they can't get to the necessary buildings to get their ID" BUT SOMEHOW they are still getting to the necessary buildings to vote. If voting is that important to these people then they will find a way to get an ID. They got to the building where the voting is happening, they can get to the necessary buildings to get an ID. Let's be proactive rather than reactive. There WILL be an election, whether its Presidential or not, that will be directly impacted by voter fraud.
I don't give a shit about just how much you have convinced yourself with a phony concern over fraud when you're real objective is to suppress voters.
I want everyone to vote, that's where you're wrong. I hate when people bitch and complain about the government and they're the ones who don't vote. I just find it completely insane that we have a system in place where I can go to wherever the hell you live and go vote for you. That is just ridiculous.
Everyone should be required to show voter ID when going to vote. When you register to vote, you should receive a government issued ID. It's not racist and it is certainly NOT suppression since EVERYONE has to do it, not specific group. You're telling me because someone is in a poor community they can't get an ID. I call bullshit.
By the way, not sure this is the right thread but where in the Constitution does it say in order for me to keep and bare arms I need to get fingerprinted, background checked, provide several forms of ID and pay a licensing fee? I just checked and it's not there. _
You're not half as cute as you think you are. ANY lawyer and most other people who care to look at the subject know, as I said earlier, that when governmental action restricts Constitutional rights, there has to be a valid reason for how it does so. When in the article I quoted there were five votes in two elections in the state of Texas, but that the voter ID law would affect (just going by the numbers) 600,000 people, it should not be difficult to see that that is disproportionate. And as everyone also knows the Second Amendment is not an absolute statement as you pretend to imply, but couches such terms as it does in connection with the existence of state militias.
No no no--I was totally agreeing with you. You totally changed my mind. I feel disenfranchised. Suppressed. As a gun owner. Btw, as long as my GF thinks I'm cute, I'm good. _
One reporter in Ft.Myers, a city of about 47000 registered voters found about 100 illegal aliens that voted in the last general election. This was with a simplistic check so you can imagine with a more in depth review would probably find more. It may seem like a small number but if that percentage is applied to the voting population of the US that would be 1/4 million votes, maybe not enough to influence Presidential elections but in some area could certainly be the tipping point in close elections.
Do you seriously think there are no issues at all with voter fraud? This first link below was a poll worker, got 5 years but then was released early. After her release she was called up on stage at a Democratic voters rights rally, great message they send there. The second one was a news station did some digging and found almost 100 illegal aliens voted. I could go on and on but you don't want to believe it so I won't bother. By the way when I was reading some articles from people who claim there is no problem the 2 cases here were nowhere on their lists, maybe that is why they can claim there are very few cases, they don't look. http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news...ts-5year-sentence-for-illegal-voting/21014378 http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/02/02/nbc2-investigates-voter-fraud
They just register and no one checks up on it. Florida tried to clear up that issue but was denied access to a federal immigration database.
Many have put it quite simply, the below is from Wikipedia, (I put that out there since a lot of Wikipedia is not reliable but don't know how the below could be called into question). In 2005, American University’s Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, wrote: The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important. — The Commission on Federal Election Reform The Commission concluded that, although proven voter impersonation is minimal, a photo ID requirement will ensure election integrity and safeguard public perception of the nation's voting system at little cost to anyone.
That last sentence which I bolded is my entire argument for it. Forget about what party it helps and what party it doesn't help. I don't understand how anyone can argue that!
I never said "there are no issues at all with voter fraud" I said that the proposal to require ID to vote will not cure a problem that does not exist. You have provided two examples which have nothing to do with the ID requirement; the first, a dishonest poll worker who could have performed the exact same acts if there was an ID required and the second a problem of a Board of Elections allowing non-citizens to register, not vote. That person could still vote if an ID was required but should never have been allowed to register. The ID requirement would change nothing.
Then require some type of government card that is scanned like a creditcard that is issued when you register to vote.
Requiring a photo ID (i) would be a real pain in the ass to get if you were lazy and (ii) it's not required by the Constitution (the Framers apparently didn't have the forethought we all give them credit for). _
