Democrat Barbara Lee of California claims that Republicans are trying to deny African Americans the right to vote. How? By passing laws that require the voter to present an ID before voting.

A Democratic lawmaker said Wednesday on the House floor that Republican legislators around the country are purposefully trying to deny blacks the right to vote by pushing for voter identification laws.

“It’s no coincidence that a disproportionate number of these affected voters come from communities of color as well as the poor, the elderly and students,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

On Wednesday, Lee charged that the ID laws would prevent 1 in 4 blacks from voting, and 1 in 5 Hispanics and Asian Americans.


http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/197809-rep-lee-says-gop-has-racist-motives-with-voter-id-laws
Personally, I find this claim to be completely absurd. Requiring an ID seems like the most basic and simple thing that should be done to ensure the integrity of our election system.

On a personal level, as a Hispanic, I find it insulting to claim that 20% of Hispanics who are eligible to vote would be prevented from doing so by requiring an ID. Now it may be true that illegal aliens would be prevented from voting by such a requirement, but that's pretty much the point, isn't it? Any African Americans out there? Would a requirement that you show ID prevent you from voting?

Rep Lee seems to feel that minorities are completely helpless and unable to accomplish basic tasks such as acquiring an ID.

Of course they are trying to limit voting rights. Whether blacks or minorities are being targeted is a matter for debate, but that is the practical effect. Given that there have been only a handful of cases of voter fraud as opposed to election fraud, you do have to wonder what they are doing.

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Republican-led Voter Restrictions Are Rigging Democracy (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/11/08/republican-led-voter-restrictions-are-rigging-democracy)

Yeah, more Republican/Tea Bagger dirty tricks.

"Even at the time, there was no evidence to back up such outlandish claims. A major probe by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for going to the polls and impersonating an eligible voter, which the anti-fraud laws are supposedly designed to stop. Out of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and many of the cases involved immigrants and former felons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility." - Rolling Stone

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1funERZ7i

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud

On a personal level, as a Hispanic, I find it insulting to claim that 20% of Hispanics who are eligible to vote would be prevented from doing so by requiring an ID. Now it may be true that illegal aliens would be prevented from voting by such a requirement, but that's pretty much the point, isn't it? Any African Americans out there? Would a requirement that you show ID prevent you from voting?

Rep Lee seems to feel that minorities are completely helpless and unable to accomplish basic tasks such as acquiring an ID.

On a personal level, as an American, I find it insulting that you expect us to sympathize with this obvious bullshit.

Okay, look: So, imagine a ninety-some year old lady who has never missed an election.

Just work with me, here, okay?

So, upon hearing that she is going to be required to present a photo ID—something she hasn't carried for a while, since she hasn't needed it—in order to vote, she goes down to her local DMV to get an ID. No big deal, right?

Except she needs, in addition to her birth certificate—which she has—her marriage certificate, since she is a woman from the era in which it was the women who changed their names.

I suppose it's her own damn fault for being so stupid as to think that her name under law and tradition would not be good enough for the government however many decades down the line, but, well, you know, this is the price she pays for being an idiot and not keeping herself adequately prepared for a Republican Party scheme to constrict voting laws and reduce the voting pool by bawling about a voter fraud phenomenon that is utterly insignificant.

There is a reason people look poorly on the GOP's scheme to reduce the eligible voting pool.

And no, we won't be so rude as to hold your bullshit against all Hispanics. We realize that their ethnicity does not automatically mean they are as dishonest as you.

Spare us the fallacious appeal to bullshit, sir. Anyone who isn't sold to bigotry and greed knows what's going on here. And if you don't like that characterization, tough fuh-reakin' shit. I'm sorry if the truth is unkind to your honor, dignity, and reputation, but since those things mean so little to you, don't expect the rest of us to bother with any vapid pretense of respect.

And guess what, Republican governors are shutting down DMVs (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm) in Democratic majority districts.

On a personal level, as an American, I find it insulting that you expect us to sympathize with this obvious bullshit.

Okay, look: So, imagine a ninety-some year old lady who has never missed an election.

Just work with me, here, okay?

So, upon hearing that she is going to be required to present a photo ID—something she hasn't carried for a while, since she hasn't needed it—in order to vote, she goes down to her local DMV to get an ID. No big deal, right?

Except she needs, in addition to her birth certificate—which she has—her marriage certificate, since she is a woman from the era in which it was the women who changed their names.

I suppose it's her own damn fault for being so stupid as to think that her name under law and tradition would not be good enough for the government however many decades down the line, but, well, you know, this is the price she pays for being an idiot and not keeping herself adequately prepared for a Republican Party scheme to constrict voting laws and reduce the voting pool by bawling about a voter fraud phenomenon that is utterly insignificant.

There is a reason people look poorly on the GOP's scheme to reduce the eligible voting pool.

And no, we won't be so rude as to hold your bullshit against all Hispanics. We realize that their ethnicity does not automatically mean they are as dishonest as you.

Spare us the fallacious appeal to bullshit, sir. Anyone who isn't sold to bigotry and greed knows what's going on here. And if you don't like that characterization, tough fuh-reakin' shit. I'm sorry if the truth is unkind to your honor, dignity, and reputation, but since those things mean so little to you, don't expect the rest of us to bother with any vapid pretense of respect.
My 93 year old immigrant grandfather has an ID. My immigrant grandmother who had no birth certiificate had an ID. I don't know a single adult who does not have an ID.

We routinely get a copy of a patient's ID as part of the check in procedure at my office and pretty much everyone but children has one. Whites, blacks, hispanics, illegal aliens, even 93 year olds. I can assure you that nowhere near 20 or 25% of any demographic group fails to provide ID.

So the idea that asking for an ID is too big a hurtle for those oppressed minorities is bullshit. The only reason I can see for anyone to complain about such a trivial requirement is that it might hinder your attempts to stuff the ballot box.

My 93 year old immigrant grandfather has an ID. My immigrant grandmother who had no birth certiificate had an ID. I don't know a single adult who does not have an ID.

The reason I find that argument unsatisfactory is that it does not apply to the present.

Your immigrant grandmother would not be able to get an ID in Tennessee. Well, at least until the Republicans manage to fix their screwed up voter ID law. You know, after they were embarrassed when it emerged that they might accomplish something that even Jim Crow laws couldn't accomplish—Dorothy Cooper, age 96, could not get a proper ID in order to vote because she didn't have her marriage certificate.

Meanwhile, over ten percent of Tennesseeans don't have sufficient identification to vote under the new laws. And not everybody will face equal requirements. All the women who were dumb enough to take their husbands' last names will need to cough up marriage certificates in addition to their birth certificates. At least, in Tennessee. Unless Republicans fix the law they passed by allowing people over the age of sixty to vote absentee without photo ID.

You know, back in the 1990s, when several states adopted voting by mail, the theory was that more voters would participate. If this isn't about trimming the voter pool, what with all the random coincidences going on—you know, like the bit in Wisconsin where, by pure coincidence, the DMV offices that it makes the most economic sense to close are in Democratic districts, and the ones to expand are in Republican districts, and other such strange notions—then why are Republicans invoking a fictitious vote fraud fear to justify themselves?

The reason I find that argument unsatisfactory is that it does not apply to the present.

Your immigrant grandmother would not be able to get an ID in Tennessee. Well, at least until the Republicans manage to fix their screwed up voter ID law. You know, after they were embarrassed when it emerged that they might something that even Jim Crow laws couldn't accomplish—Dorothy Cooper, age 96, could not get a proper ID in order to vote because she didn't have her marriage certificate.

Meanwhile, over ten percent of Tennesseeans don't have sufficient identification to vote under the new laws. And not everybody will face equal requirements. All the women who were dumb enough to take their husbands' last names will need to cough up marriage certificates in addition to their birth certificates. At least, in Tennessee. Unless Republicans fix the law they passed by allowing people over the age of sixty to vote absentee without photo ID.

You know, back in the 1990s, when several states adopted voting by mail, the theory was that more voters would participate. If this isn't about trimming the voter pool, what with all the random coincidences going on—you know, like the bit in Wisconsin where, by pure coincidence, the DMV offices that it makes the most economic sense to close are in Democratic districts, and the ones to expand are in Republican districts, and other such strange notions—then why are Republicans invoking a fictitious vote fraud fear to justify themselves?

not to mention these laws only apply to voting at the polls where its more slanted to democratic voters. while you don't need to provide anything for abseentee ballot where it mostly republican voters.

I don't know a single adult who does not have an ID.

The issue is not "an ID." Only certain forms of ID are acceptable; some municipalities require a state-issued photo ID with current address, etc.

It's also interesting that you are introducing the red herrings of age and gender into the discussion ("93-year-old grandmother"), when nobody has suggested that there is any disparate impact along such axes, nor accepted the bizarre premise that being an old female renders someone less likely to possess the correct form of ID than does being a poor black person.

But more generally, the set of people that you know (and know the ID status of) is not a representative sample of the electorate. You've indicated as much before, in expressing bafflement that anybody wouldn't have a credit card, or rent movies from Blockbuster, etc. In fact, haven't you also recounted having up and moved municipalities (states?) for the express purpose of avoiding policies aimed at social integration? Or was that someone else?



I can assure you that nowhere near 20 or 25% of any demographic group fails to provide ID.

Here's an actual statistical survey of the state of Indiana (and elsewhere), showing how possession of relevant ID breaks down on racial and partisan lines:

http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/PS_VoterID.pdf


Among all registered voters, 84.2% of whites have the correct ID credential in Indiana compared to 78.0% of blacks, statistically significant
at the 0.10 level. When we only focus on likely voters, those who consistently voted in 2002, 2004, and 2006, a 6-point gap between blacks and whites is still evident. Thus, if the Indiana law is applied strictly to the letter of the law, about 14% of likely white voters could be turned away from the polls and over 20% of likely black voters could be turned away. While both numbers are regrettable, the data demonstrate that blacks are disproportionately impacted by the Indiana law.


Finally, income demonstrates a predictable pattern with the lowes tincome category of voters significantly less likely to have acceptable photo ID.


Registered voters in Indiana who identify as Republicans were more likely to have proper ID credentials than those who identified as Democrats. While the gap of 4.5 points is not huge, it is large enough to affect election results in a close or competitive contest.


[The] Supreme Court conceded that there is no evidence that falsely impersonating a voter has occurred in Indiana. [...] Our research of extant findings in this area clearly indicate that voter impersonation is extremely rare, and more importantly strict laws such as the Indiana case upheld by the Supreme Court do not effectively limit the much more rampant mail-in based fraud.

Also, here's a longer, more technical paper by the same authors:

http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/research/Voter_ID_APSA.pdf



So the idea that asking for an ID is too big a hurtle for those oppressed minorities is bullshit.

The only bullshit evident here, are your fallacious assertions and their basis in anecdote and sheer innuendo. The real data pointedly disagrees with you. Try spending five minutes on Google the next time you want to call bullshit on a factual claim advanced by a politician - those types tends to have staffs to vet these kinds of things.



The only reason I can see for anyone to complain about such a trivial requirement is that it might hinder your attempts to stuff the ballot box.

On the contrary, these requirements are non-trivial and do nothing to meaningfully address voter fraud (which is overwhelmingly done via mail-in ballots that are not covered by the requirements). They are clearly an intentional effort by the GOP to disenfranchise voters who are minorities and/or poor (more to the point - likely to vote Democrat). Indeed, the GOP has a long and storied history of exactly such tactics, going back decades, so this should not surprise anyone in the slightest. Such is, in fact, the default presumption when one encounters a GOP-backed effort to tighten voter registration/ID requirements.

But, hey, way to get out in front of that issue by pre-emptively issuing a totally baseless accusation of vote-rigging at your opponents. Still on-message with the whole ACORN attack strategy, I see.

An appropriate response would be for volunteer groups to go out there, make sure racial minority voters get their "proper" ID's and provide whatever assistance is necessary (transport, information etc.), and then make damn sure those people go out and vote next time they get the opportunity, in high numbers, specifically because racist f***ing slime-eating far-right crooks want to take away their ability and right to vote, and to Gerrymander their way to victory. The people responsible for this BS need to be punished severely for their misdeeds, but I fear there might be too much apathy amongst the impoverished electorate to make it happen, and that's probably what the Republicans are gambling on.

Edit: I'm getting disturbing flashes in my mind of another regime which was famously obsessed with racial fixations and making sure everyone has the proper identity documents.

An appropriate response would be for volunteer groups to go out there, make sure racial minority voters get their "proper" ID's and provide whatever assistance is necessary (transport, information etc.), and then make damn sure those people go out and vote next time they get the opportunity, in high numbers, specifically because racist f***ing slime-eating far-right crooks want to take away their ability and right to vote, and to Gerrymander their way to victory.

You mean like, say, ACORN used to do?

Doing anything like that, on any scale, makes you a huge target for politicized, underhanded attacks by GOP activists. Not that it shouldn't be done as well, but the requirements designed to produce disparate impact (and the gerrymandering) need to be addressed directly and decisively.

You mean like, say, ACORN used to do?

Doing anything like that, on any scale, makes you a huge target for politicized, underhanded attacks by GOP activists.

Just going out and voting already makes them targets for those activists anyhow, which is why they're being squeezed out of the democratic process in the first place. So f*** the GOP vote manipulators, put them out on the streets where they belong.


Not that it shouldn't be done as well, but the requirements designed to produce disparate impact (and the gerrymandering) need to be addressed directly and decisively.

Yes, and it starts by tossing out the established officials who tried to restrict the right to vote, and demanding that their replacements make a priority of investigating and punishing anti-democratic human rights violations.

So the idea that asking for an ID is too big a hurtle for those oppressed minorities is bullshit. The only reason I can see for anyone to complain about such a trivial requirement is that it might hinder your attempts to stuff the ballot box.

All these things start out as good ideas.

It costs money to run elections. Why not have a small fee at the ballot box to cover the costs? It would cut taxes overall, and that way if you don't want to participate you don't have to pay for the election. And if you can't afford a buck or so you obviously don't care enough about your country to vote.

It inconveniences people who use libraries, community centers etc to have their facility shut down for the election. Why not put polling places in national parks in places that no one ordinarily uses? Would reduce the impact of elections. And if you can't be bothered to make a short walk you don't deserve to vote.

Uninformed people shouldn't vote. Why not have a very simple test before allowing people to vote? Just things like "how many branches does the US government have." It would help inform voters, and anyone who doesn't even know that doesn't deserve to vote.

Mightl all be good ideas. Then democrats realize that more republicans won't bother to walk a quarter mile to a polling place - and they are all over the national park idea. Democrats realize that in their state, the average IQ of democrats is higher - so they're all for the test. Republicans realize that overall, republicans have more money and are more likely to be willing to pay a poll tax. So they support that.

And such ideas thus get hijacked by people who want to win at any cost.

So yes, the ID requirement might be a good idea. But it has been hijacked by people who want to win at any cost, and hope to sway the election by keeping a certain demographic from voting. Which is why it's a bad idea in the end.

Uninformed people shouldn't vote. Why not have a very simple test before allowing people to vote? Just things like "how many branches does the US government have."

How about "Do voter identification requirements have the effect of disenfranchizing minorities?" Anyone who answers along the lines of, say "Obviously not, my old grandmother has a photo ID!" getssent home without voting. Anyone who looks up the data before answering, gets their vote counted.

The results speak for themselves, among all registered voters, 84.2% of whites have the correct ID credentials in Indiana compared to 78.0% of blacks

So in BOTH cases approx 1/5th of the people have to go get valid ids to vote.

Regardless though, it certainly isn't a major barrier and having a valid id is FAR more efficient/reliable then the previous method of voter identification:


Prior to Indiana’s current voter-identification laws, voters who were not voting for the first time were required to sign a poll book at the polling place where the signature was then matched to the signature recorded in the poll book.

Which is why modernization to use of a valid ID, which almost all adults now need anyway, makes sense.


Each of Indiana’s asserted interests is unquestionably relevant to its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient. Indiana also claims a particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana. While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s outcome. There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

SCOTUS ruling on this issue:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html


So while I don't disagree that a few more percent of blacks and poor and young and old are likely going to have to go and get valid ids, that doesn't mean, as the SCOTUS said, that there isn't a valid reason for requiring valid IDs.

I doubt it has any measurable impact at all on illegal immigrants since I really doubt many ever risk registering to vote.

Arthur

The results speak for themselves, among all registered voters, 84.2% of whites have the correct ID credentials in Indiana compared to 78.0% of blacks

So in BOTH cases approx 1/5th of the people have to go get valid ids to vote.

BFD

Having a valid id is FAR more efficient/reliable then the previous method of voter identification:



Which is why modernization to use of a valid ID, which almost all adults now need anyway, makes sense.



SCOTUS ruling on this issue:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html


So while I don't disagree that a few more percent of blacks and poor and young and old are likely going to have to go and get valid ids, that doesn't mean, as the SCOTUS said, that there isn't a valid reason for requiring valid IDs.

I doubt it has any measurable impact at all on illegal immigrants since I really doubt many ever risk registering to vote.

Arthur

Interesting, I am always amazed at the hypocrisy in Republican Party ideology. Republicans/Tea Baggers say they are against big government and government intervention in individual lives. But then requiring each individual to obtain a government issued identification card is perfectly fine, so long as it benefits the Republican Party. So it appears Republican/Tea Party devotees have two standards.

BS
You can't drive a car without a valid State Issued ID.
You can't go outside the US without a Govt issued Passport anymore, even to Canada or Mexico.
You can't buy Alcohol in most states without a valid State Issued ID (doesn't matter if you are 80 either)
You can't do most banking functions without a valid ID.
You can't deal with the Medical system (mostly before, but for sure under Obamacare) without a valid ID.

http://www.tricare.mil/tma/privacy/downloads/20100421/Verification%20of%20Identity%20Prior%20to%20Disclo sure%20of%20PHI.pdf

So no, it REALLY isn't a big issue anymore.

And it's much faster/easier/reliable than comparing signatures, which change over time, on voter logs.

BS
You can't drive a car without a valid State Issued ID.
You can't go outside the US without a Govt issued Passport anymore, even to Canada or Mexico.
You can't buy Alcohol in most states without a valid State Issued ID (doesn't matter if you are 80 either)
You can't do most banking functions without a valid ID.
You can't deal with the Medical system (mostly before, but for sure under Obamacare) without a valid ID.

So no, it REALLY isn't a big issue anymore.

And it's much faster/easier/reliable than comparing signatures, which change over time, on voter logs.

LOL, yeah. The party which is supposed to be against government intervention in our individual lives is making yet another exception to their "principals" because it is in conflict with their number one goal, party power at all cost.

For the first two hundred plus years of our existence as a country, we have not been required to have identification cards to vote. And it worked just fine. The unpleasant fact Arthur is that your party is requiring individuals to get a Republican approved ID card in order to execute our Constitutional rights.

There is no constitutional right to driving a car or any of the other things you mentioned. But there is a Constitutional right to vote.

That's not the point, Arthur. Hundreds of thousands of people don't have one, and creating this new obstacle to voting will translate into the real world effect of few people participating in the political process, which is the desired outcome.

So no, it REALLY isn't a big issue anymore.

And it's much faster/easier/reliable than comparing signatures, which change over time, on voter logs.

Then why all the reports about DMV's being closed mostly in Democratic-leaning districts?

There is no constitutional right to driving a car or any of the other things you mentioned. But there is a Constitutional right to vote.

Yes, but that right is NOT absolute, and you only get it if you are a US citizen and if a State vote, a resident of that State and even then it can be taken away based on criminal behavior.

Which is why all States have means of identifing eligible voters.

As the SCOTUS stated There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

Indiana WAS doing it by comparing signatures.
A slow and inefficient process.

The new method is much more in tune with the times.
You are only arguing about the METHOD.

Then why all the reports about DMV's being closed mostly in Democratic-leaning districts?

Well I doubt that's true, but even if it is mostly, it might just mean that most districts are Democratically leaning, but without a lot more data about what DMVs are being closed and where, I can't really say.
But is it really that big of a deal?
You need a licence to drive and virtually everyone drives, or has a passport or buy alcohol or uses the Banking or Medical systems in our country etc etc.

I mean to vote at all you also have to register, and when you do, don't you think you should have to provide some ID to prove who you are and that you are eligible to vote?

Well I doubt that's true, but even if it is mostly, it might just mean that most districts are Democratically leaning, but without a lot more data about what DMVs are being closed and where, I can't really say.
But is it really that big of a deal?

If it's more of a pain in the ass to get the appropriate ID than it is to actually go and vote, then yes it's an extremely big deal.


You need a licence to drive and virtually everyone drives, or has a passport or buy alcohol or uses the Banking or Medical systems in our country etc etc.

I mean to vote at all you also have to register, and when you do, don't you think you should have to provide some ID to prove who you are and that you are eligible to vote?

I believe proper ID should indeed be a prerequisite for voting, but reasonably convenient means of obtaining an ID should be a prerequisite for requiring one in the first place. Since there's no evidence voter ID fraud has made a difference in any US elections to date, the priorities look far too suspicious to brush off just like that. I don't know why anyone would want to defend a party which can't win an election on simple merit alone.

If it's more of a pain in the ass to get the appropriate ID than it is to actually go and vote, then yes it's an extremely big deal.

Except it isn't.
Indeed most everyone has one already and elections are much more frequent than how often one has to get an ID.




I believe proper ID should indeed be a prerequisite for voting, but reasonably convenient means of obtaining an ID should be a prerequisite for requiring one in the first place.

And it is reasonably convenient.


Since there's no evidence voter ID fraud has made a difference in any US elections to date,

Was it proven Voter Fraud that made you Canadians require ID?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Since IDs haven't been routinely required I'm not sure how you would even know.

But according to the SCOTUS ruling, that isn't exactly a true statement: Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s outcome.


the priorities look far too suspicious to brush off just like that. I don't know why anyone would want to defend a party which can't win an election on simple merit alone.

Clearly they can and do.
What I find most interesting though is how much people are resisting a relatively simple and logical requirement for proving someone is eligible for voting.

Voting is at least as important as proving your age to buy cigarettes isn't it?

That requires a valid state issued picture ID in my state.

Arthur

Yes, but that right is NOT absolute, and you only get it if you are a US citizen and if a State vote, a resident of that State and even then it can be taken away based on criminal behavior.

Which is why all States have means of identifing eligible voters.

As the SCOTUS stated There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

Indiana WAS doing it by comparing signatures.
A slow and inefficient process.

The new method is much more in tune with the times.
You are only arguing about the METHOD.

Florida did it by contracting with a partisan company and summarily eliminating names from voter rolls.

The point is that your party, the party supposedly against government intrusions into individual lives and rights, is supporting such an intrusion because it benefits them to keep people from voting. It is hypocrisy Arthur pure and simple.

BS
You can't drive a car without a valid State Issued ID.
You can't go outside the US without a Govt issued Passport anymore, even to Canada or Mexico.

But you can vote, and that's guaranteed by the Constitution.


And it's much faster/easier/reliable than comparing signatures, which change over time, on voter logs.

So no problem. Support both systems. (Of course that wouldn't skew the election in the GOP's direction, so I imagine they'll fight that with all the media sources at their disposal.)

Florida did it by contracting with a partisan company and summarily eliminating names from voter rolls.

The point is that your party, the party supposedly against government intrusions into individual lives and rights, is supporting such an intrusion because it benefits them to keep people from voting. It is hypocrisy Arthur pure and simple.

No Joe, it only makes sense in a country that is going to grow by 60 million more people in the next 20 years to have a more streamlined, efficient and reliable method of identifiing eligible voters.

What used to work when we were a much smaller country simply doesn't work as well as we continue to grow.

What I fiind really funny is that you are all about Obamacare and a key requirement of that is Electronificaton of the Medical system and that coupled with HIPAA rules makes it virtually impossible to get medical care/records/prescriptions without a valid picture ID.

Source: Brennan Cener for Justice at NYU School of Law (http://truthaboutfraud.org/)
Link: http://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf
Title: "The Truth About Voter Fraud", by Justin Leavitt
Date: 2007

Those interested in making the case that the new voter ID laws provide a safeguard against voter fraud should attend the Brennan Center's 2007 report on the issue:


Allegations of widespread voter fraud, however, often prove greatly exaggerated. It is easy to grab headlines with a lurid claim ("Tens of thousands may be voting illegally!"); the follow-up — when any exists — is not usually deemed newsworthy. Yet on closer examination, many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire. The allegations simply do not pan out.

These inflated claims are not harmless. Crying "wolf" when the allegations are unsubstantiated distracts attention from real problems that need real solutions. If we can move beyond the fixation on voter fraud, we will be able to focus on the real changes our elections need, from universal registration all the way down to sufficient parking at the poll site.

Moreover, these claims of voter fraud are frequently used to justify policies that do not solve the alleged wrongs, but that could well disenfranchise legitimate voters. Overly restrictive identification requirements for voters at the polls — which address a sort of voter fraud more rare than death by lightning — is only the most prominent example. (Leavitt, 3)


• • •

"Voter fraud" is fraud by voters.

More precisely, "voter fraud" occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system.

This sounds straightforward. And yet, voter fraud is often conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with other forms of election misconduct or irregularities. (ibid, 4)


• • •

The most common example of the harm wrought by imprecise and inflated claims of "voter fraud" is the call for in-person photo identification requirements. Such photo ID laws are effective only in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls — an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.

By throwing all sorts of election anomalies under the "voter fraud" umbrella, however, advocates for such laws artificially inflate the apparent need for these restrictions and undermine the urgency of other reforms.

Moreover, as with all restrictions on voters, photo identification requirements have a predictable detrimental impact on eligible citizens. Such laws are only potentially worthwhile if they clearly prevent more problems than they create. If policymakers distinguished real voter fraud from the more common election irregularities erroneously labeled as voter fraud, it would become apparent that the limited benefits of laws like photo ID requirements are simply not worth the cost.

Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas, concisely tied all of these strands together in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article concerning a highly controversial battle over photo identification legislation in Texas. Masset connected the inflated furor over voter fraud to photo identification laws and their expected impact on legitimate voters:


Among Republicans it is an "article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections," Masset said. He doesn't agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.

(ibid, 6)


• • •

Those searching for fraud — politicians, pundits, and even occasionally prosecutors — sometimes jump to unwarranted conclusions with a limited amount of information. The "birthdate problem" above — mistaking two different people with the same name and birthdate — is one example. But there are many other circumstances in which observers draw illicit conclusions from data that in fact have a benign explanation. (ibid, 9)

Additionally, Leavitt later offered an analysis (http://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/CrawfordAllegations.pdf) of claims made by the State of Indiana in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:


In briefing filed with the Supreme Court in the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board case, the State of Indiana and several of its allied amici again fail to justify Indiana's photo ID law. They recite various examples of problems that the challenged law would not solve. They fail, however, to provide any evidence that in-person impersonation fraud — the only misconduct that photo ID rules could possibly prevent — is a problem, let alone one justifying the burdens of a restrictive photo ID rule.

In these submissions, it is easy to get distracted by noise. The briefs — submitted by the State of Indiana, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Attorney Generals of nine states, a national political party, members of Congress, various election officials, and several nonprofit organizations — contain more than 250 citations to reports of election problems.

But not one of the sources cited shows proof of a vote that Indiana's law could prevent. That is, not one of the citations offered by Indiana or its allies refers to a proven example of a single vote cast at the polls in someone else's name that could be stopped by a pollsite photo ID rule.

Even including suspected but unproven reports of fraud, the State and its allies have uncovered remarkably little evidence of any misconduct that Indiana's law could prevent. Out of almost 400 million votes cast in general elections alone since 2000, the briefs cite one attempt at impersonation that was thwarted without a photo ID requirement, and nine unresolved cases where impersonation fraud at the polls was suspected but not proven. Nine possible examples out of hundreds of millions — and these nine cases might just as well have been due to clerical error. Not one of these cited reports occurred in Indiana.

The political rhetoric supporting these new laws is baseless.
____________________

See Also:

Leavitt, Justin. "Analysis of Alleged Fraud in Briefs Supporting Crawford Respondents". Brennan Center for Justice. December 31, 2007. TruthAboutFraud.org. December 9, 2011. http://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/CrawfordAllegations.pdf

But you can vote, and that's guaranteed by the Constitution.

Actually it's not.
Which is why it can be denied, you know, for being a felon.
And of course it's only guaranteed by States to ELIGIBLE voters in that State (most elections have BOTH State and Federal votes at the same time)
and so as the SCOTUS says:

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.



So no problem. Support both systems.

That's even worse of a solution.
Going to the ID does away with having to maintain and print out a place for the signature lines in the Poll books (makes them HUGE).

Was it proven Voter Fraud that made you Canadians require ID?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

Did you not notice option #3, which says that if you lack a Canadian government-issued ID, all you need is for someone with a proper ID to vouch for you instead? Furthermore, obtaining an ID here is as quick, simple and accessible as going shopping for groceries. Does California's DMV operate at that level of efficiency and convenience?


Since IDs haven't been routinely required I'm not sure how you would even know.

Do you have any pertinent examples showing why voter ID fraud should be a major concern in the first place? Seem like an extremely convenient bone to be picking at this time.

Those interested in making the case that the new voter ID laws provide a safeguard against voter fraud should attend the Brennan Center's 2007 report on the issue:

Not at all.

Indeed with the LAX verification procedures we have in place it could be going on but us not know it.
So there is no need for us to wait until we have clear evidence that it happens to deal with the potential issue by requiring easily procured identification.

Identification that we increasingly demand for all aspects of our lives.

Driving a car.
Buying Tobacco.
Buying Alcohol
Buying a Gun.
Buying OTC meds like Sudafed.
Getting health care treatment or records.
Going in or out of the country, even to Canada or Mexico.
Flying on a commerical airline.
Banking.

So clearly it isn't a big stretch to require it for voting.

Indeed, if it wasn't for the many other COMMON requirements to show a Govt Issued ID I would also have a problem with this, but given that you need it for just normal living I don't think it is an unreasonable request to insure our election system is fair.


There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

Did you not notice option #3, which says that if you lack a Canadian government-issued ID, all you need is for someone with a proper ID to vouch for you instead? Furthermore, obtaining an ID here is as quick, simple and accessible as going shopping for groceries. Does California's DMV operate at that level of efficiency and convenience?

You still require it, and one person can only vouch for one other person and THAT person has to have a Proper ID.

So yes, Canada requires at least HALF of it's voters to have IDs.

As to California DMVs, don't know, don't live there.

But for me in my state it took all of 15 minutes to get it the first time (no test just turn in my previous states DL, do the quick eye test and stand for the picture).
Then when it expired in 4 years I renewed it by mail (it comes back with the same picture)

You can also get an ID card, that looks like a DL but doesn't require the driving test at any DMV or at the various court houses.

You can also get a US Passport at nearly any US Post Office.

It really isn't hard to do.


Do you have any pertinent examples showing why voter ID fraud should be a major concern in the first place? Seem like an extremely convenient bone to be picking at this time.

Do we need to have the problem before we come up with ways to prevent it or should we just wait until after a major voter fraud case ruins an election?

I think one of the major concerns is if we don't check IDs, how would we even know?

Why did Canada institute it?

So voting has been flawed for the entire history of the United States until now?

So voting has been flawed for the entire history of the United States until now?

Possibly.


Mayor Daley already had a reputation for stuffing ballot boxes and giving ward bosses and precinct captains vote quotas. Two recounts of Chicago-area voting later showed that Democrats had likely stolen tens of thousands of votes, but most were in the Cook County state's attorney race.

Between classes at the University of Chicago and into the night, sometimes until 2 a.m., Schiller joined other members of Wexler's team to conduct interviews and cull through ballots and election judges' tallies. When Schiller misplaced a draft of a report, a supervisor feared someone had broken in and stolen it.

Wexler's report, issued in April 1961, found "substantial" miscounts in the 1,367 precincts it examined, including unqualified voters, misread voting machines and math mistakes. In one precinct, voters asked where to deposit tickets for a drawing for hams. In another, a precinct captain handed out slips of paper entitling voters to free lunches.

Wexler brought contempt charges against 667 election officials, but the cases were dismissed by a Democratic judge. Three people were convicted on criminal charges.

Schiller thinks now that a Democratic "mechanism was in place" to make sure that party's candidates won — not just in the presidential race, but in local contests. As for the Kennedy-Nixon results in Illinois, he says, "looking at the margin of victory, it's very hard to believe that there wasn't at least a significant likelihood that the outcome would have been different in the state."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-26-jfk-chicago-politics_N.htm

And of course it's BS like this, ballot stuffing by the Democrats, that we don't want to have happen again.

Since we had a lax system it is entirely possible it's been compromised in other ways we are not even aware of.

And we ARE going to grow by 60+ million people over the next 20 years and so we DO have to modernize how we determine eligibility to vote.

Something we already do, this just changes how we do it.

Comparing signatures to the one you signed when you registered years ago is so 20th century.

Indeed with the LAX verification procedures we have in place it could be going on but us not know it.
So there is no need for us to wait until we have clear evidence that it happens to deal with the potential issue by requiring easily procured identification.

You certainly make a compelling argument for why evidence is irrelevant and useless.

That's election fraud, not voting fraud.

>But you can vote, and that's guaranteed by the Constitution.


Actually it's not.

It is, in four separate places:
=============
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

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

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

. . .when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
======================


That's even worse of a solution.

Why? Because too many eligible voters might vote? We might get an election that has too many people participating?


Going to the ID does away with having to maintain and print out a place for the signature lines in the Poll books (makes them HUGE).

Like I said - have both. Have a method of capturing signatures and a means of taking ID. I can think of several ways of doing that off the top of my head.

Do we need to have the problem before we come up with ways to prevent it or should we just wait until after a major voter fraud case ruins an election?

I think one of the major concerns is if we don't check IDs, how would we even know?

Why the rush to do it now, at the same time DMV's in predominantly Democratic districts are being shut down? Why not announce the policy now and implement it in 4 years' time so voters have a fair chance to prepare themselves for the extra hassle?


Why did Canada institute it?

Because we were able to do it without preventing people who wanted to vote from doing so.

No Joe, it only makes sense in a country that is going to grow by 60 million more people in the next 20 years to have a more streamlined, efficient and reliable method of identifiing eligible voters.

What used to work when we were a much smaller country simply doesn't work as well as we continue to grow.

So what you are saying is that Republicans are against government intrusion into the lives of individuals except when it prevents government from becoming more efficient. Then why are you not applying that same logic to other issues like healthcare/Obamacare?


What I fiind really funny is that you are all about Obamacare and a key requirement of that is Electronificaton of the Medical system and that coupled with HIPAA rules makes it virtually impossible to get medical care/records/prescriptions without a valid picture ID.

A couple of things, one there is no requirement in Obamacare for a valid picture issued government ID. That is you making stuff up again. Two, this is discussion is not about Obamacare. It is about the hypocritical positions of the Republican Party - your party.

You guys represent yourself as being against government intrusion into the lives of individuals. Yet you are making the biggest intrusion ever by requiring everyone get a picture ID card in order to exercise our rights provided by the Constitution. And for all you "strict constructionalists" where does it say in the Constitution that you need a state issued ID card in order to exercise our right to vote? Oh that is right, it doesn't. Another Republican hypocrisy.

>But you can vote, and that's guaranteed by the Constitution.

ONLY if you are ELIGIBLE to vote.

And that can be limited:



It is, in four separate places:
=============
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

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

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

. . .when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
======================

Nope, those only state reasons that you can't be kept from voting for.

Your sex or not paying a "poll tax".

But what it explicitily states is that you can be denied the ability to vote based on your AGE, you must be over 18 and for participation in rebellion, or other crime

Which is why you need an ID to verify your identity, you know, for instance that you are in fact a US citizen, of legal age and not convicted of a felony.



Why? Because too many eligible voters might vote? We might get an election that has too many people participating?

Not at all.
The issue is about people who aren't eligible to vote, voting.
An easily obtained Picture ID helps insure that's the case.

You know why they do that in many countries.
Like Canada.


Like I said - have both. Have a method of capturing signatures and a means of taking ID. I can think of several ways of doing that off the top of my head.

Too expensive.
Besides, States have the right to determine what they think is right for them.
Or do you not believe in States Rights either?

What's the motivation, Arthur? Because it's not for preventing voter fraud, that hardly happens ever.

What's the motivation, Arthur? Because it's not for preventing voter fraud, that hardly happens ever.

How do you know?

In fact what I find interesting is that the current system was designed for times back when people knew their neighbors and it wan't easily to defraud.

But times have changed and so I think, with 30 million more of us expected every 10 years it makes sense to modernize the method of identifing voters and preventing possible fraud.

14 States already have Voter ID laws requiring Photo ID, so I suspect it's just a matter of time before they all do.

How do you know?

In case you were not paying attention.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2870544&postcount=5

How do you know?

In fact what I find interesting is that the current system was designed for times back when people knew their neighbors and it wan't easily to defraud.

But times have changed and so I think, with 30 million more of us expected every 10 years it makes sense to modernize the method of identifing voters and preventing possible fraud.

14 States already have Voter ID laws requiring Photo ID, so I suspect it's just a matter of time before they all do.

We know because they keep track of these things. The only reason to change it now is to limit the number of poor and immigrant voters, and the cons know it. If you don't, then you should question why you are acting as their tool.

A couple of things, one there is no requirement in Obamacare for a valid picture issued government ID. That is you making stuff up again.

Yes there is.

Section 1104: Establishes a single set of operating rules regarding eligibility and claims status, electronic funds transfers, healthcare payment and remittance rules, health claims, enrollment in health plans, health plan premium payments, referral authorizations, and unique health plan identifiers, for the purpose of simplifying the administration of healthcare. The operating rules will be consensus-based and will reflect the business rules of health plans and healthcare providers, as well as operation under the standards issued under HIPPA.


HIPPA requires people to be identified by a valid government issued ID.

Don't believe me, then simply try checking into a hospital or getting your records out of one without a valid picture ID.
Not gonna happen.

Arthur

We know because they keep track of these things.

How can you keep track of something you may not be aware of?

The whole POINT of voter fraud is to not be detected.

Why aren't you bitching at the Canadians?


The Elections Fraud Act follows up on recommendations from a June 2006 report by the House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the integrity of the federal election process. A key reform in this legislation is the introduction of a uniform voter identification system at the polls for Canadian federal elections.

By the way, 14 states already require it.

Do you have ANY evidence that the voting pattern in these states has changed because of going to the requirement for IDs?

Why the rush to do it now, at the same time DMV's in predominantly Democratic districts are being shut down? Why not announce the policy now and implement it in 4 years' time so voters have a fair chance to prepare themselves for the extra hassle?

There is no rush.
It's a state by state activity.
You have not shown that DMVs in predominately Democratic districts ARE shutting down.


Because we were able to do it without preventing people who wanted to vote from doing so.

No, that's HOW you were able to do it, not WHY you did it in the first place.

We have the same reasons as you do.

In fact I like the Canadian Voucher provision as a way to transition to it.

No reason States in the US can't do the exact same.

Arthur, there is nothing more inefficient than fixing non existent problems.

There is no rush.
It's a state by state activity.
You have not shown that DMVs in predominately Democratic districts ARE shutting down.

Spidergoat pointed out a relevant example, and it's part of a larger trend. Why not put the DMV's more in areas where people have the money to pay for them? It's not about making it extremely difficult and troublesome for low-income minorities to go out and get themselves all the appropriate documentation, it's about "economics". Guns don't kill people, it's the spontaneous friction of metal resulting in a spark igniting gunpowder that kills people.

If Republicans are so concerned about fraud, why do they persist in advocating electronic voting machines which are demonstrably hackable?

Spidergoat pointed out a relevant example, and it's part of a larger trend. Why not put the DMV's more in areas where people have the money to pay for them? It's not about making it extremely difficult and troublesome for low-income minorities to go out and get themselves all the appropriate documentation, it's about "economics". Guns don't kill people, it's the spontaneous friction of metal resulting in a spark igniting gunpowder that kills people.

No it's not part of any trend.
It has to do with one state.

And it has nothing to do with politics.

Indeed the changes were made to meet state legal requirements:


The recently enacted state budget requires that DMV driver license and ID card services be offered in all 72 counties at least 20 hours a week. Currently, only 30 counties have offices that meet that 20-hour requirement.

Once the changes are made, there will be 625 more hours of DMV service to the public a week or about 32,000 hours more a year, said Kristina Boardman, the department's director of field services who is overseeing the plan.

Arthur

If Republicans are so concerned about fraud, why do they persist in advocating electronic voting machines which are demonstrably hackable?

Because they aren't.

Except it isn't.
Indeed most everyone has one already

Except they don't - we just saw the data showing that 20% (or more) of registered voters in Indiana don't have the proper ID. When you say "most everyone," that connotes a percentage much higher than 80%. You're talking about disenfranchizing one fifth of the electorate of Indiana.

Meanwhile, the demographics of people lacking IDs break down in favor of the Republicans. If this were part of a holistic effort to ensure that everyone could easily get IDs, and was addressing an actual problem (there is no evidence of voter fraud for in-person votes in Indiana - but there is ample evidence of write-in fraud, which is not addressed by these requirement) then perhaps we could take the concerns about eligibility and process seriously. But given the actual situation, and the GOP's long history of such tactics, that reading simply is not credible. This is a partisan effort, designed exactly to disenfranchize minorities and the poor.


But according to the SCOTUS ruling, that isn't exactly a true statement: Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s outcome.

Let's take the larger quote that you pulled that from:


While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s outcome.

I.e., there is no evidence that in-person voter impersonation has ever occurred in Indiana. The main type of voter fraud - including the type in said mayoral primary - is write-in fraud, which is not addressed by the ID requirements at issue here. Indiana is doing absolutely nothing about the known avenue of almost all voter fraud, and instead introducing strict requirements to address a hypothetical problem that nobody has any evidence has ever even occurred in Indiana. And in a way that just so happens to disenfranchise significant numbers of minority and poor voters.



What I find most interesting though is how much people are resisting a relatively simple and logical requirement for proving someone is eligible for voting.

Given that there has been no evidence presented that there is a problem that needs addressing, but there has been evidence presented that the proposed "solution" will disenfranchise 20% of the state's registered voters, I don't find that strange in the least. What's interesting is the GOP tactic of drumming up an imaginary problem, and then conveniently proposing a solution that keeps poor and minority voters from participating.

I.e., there is no evidence that in-person voter impersonation has ever occurred in Indiana.

I would urge you to keep in mind that you're arguing with Adoucette, who has already declared himself above and beyond (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2871676&postcount=33) evidence. For our neighbor, the idea that something might happen is more important than the question of whether it has actually happened or not.

But, you know, that almost makes sense. Like Florida, in 2000. It wasn't so much that the thousands of people you or I might say were wrongly stricken from the voter rolls actually were illegal voters. Indeed, the evidence shows they weren't. But, you know, they might have been, since they had names that simply sounded like they were felons, so there was "no need for us to wait until we have clear evidence" before striking them from the rolls.

Every once in a while people like Arthur actually make sense. Unfortunately, it's usually not in any way that supports their argument.

I would urge you to keep in mind that you're arguing with Adoucette,

"Arguing with" would be a bridge too far - what I'm doing here is re-asserting points that were already saliently made, with substantiating evidence, and which adoucette is now attempting to bury under an avalanche of oblivious denials.



For our neighbor, the idea that something might happen is more important than the question of whether it has actually happened or not.

And the question of the actual consequences of the suggested policy, not at all.

Likewise, the actual real problem along these lines - mail-in fraud, which this measure does nothing to address - is ignored outright. Unsurprisingly, since it does not offer the same chance for partisan advantage. This obliviousness to the genuine problem neatly undermines the supposed principled concern over fraud.

Except they don't - we just saw the data showing that 20% (or more) of registered voters in Indiana don't have the proper ID. When you say "most everyone," that connotes a percentage much higher than 80%. You're talking about disenfranchizing one fifth of the electorate of Indiana.

Not at all.
That says ~20% have to do something, and an easy something at that, so that's NOT the same thing as disenfranchizing anyone.

Not at all.
That says ~20% have to do something, that's NOT the same thing as disenfranchizing anyone.

You've just expended quite some energy arguing that possession of the relevant ID is so basically necessary to everything that nobody has any reason not to have one already. Are you asserting that the only reason that 20% of registered voters don't have such, is just simple laziness?



However I don't believe the 20% number anyway, but it will probably take some research to prove it's bogus.

I like how you've arrived at your conclusion in advance of starting on the research.

You've just expended quite some energy arguing that possession of the relevant ID is so basically necessary to everything that nobody has any reason not to have one already. Are you asserting that the only reason that 20% of registered voters don't have such, is just simple laziness?



I like how you've arrived at your conclusion in advance of starting on the research.

No the two are related.

It seems highly unlikely to me that the Union Set of people who don't drive, bank, fly, buy tobacco, buy alcohol and use routine medical care is 20% of the registered voters, and so I'm going to do a little checking on the stats to find out if the 20% holds up.

I was out tonight at a Yule Concert and it was attended by a wide cross section of people.
I randomly asked a number of them tonight if they had such an ID (I simply asked if they had a DL or Passport).
Everyone of them said yes.
According to this, about 1 in 5 should have said no.
True it was a small sample (16 people besides myself) but still it was interesting.

As to the study.

You DO realize people were simply ASKED if they had the relevant ID.

There was no verification done to access the accuracy of the data.

People have been known to be mistaken.
People have been known to lie.

Finally, if this were such a Democrat/Republican issue, why did they just institute essentially the same Voter ID requirements in Canada?

Arthur

No the two are related.

It seems highly unlikely to me that the Union Set of people who don't drive, bank, fly, buy tobacco, buy alcohol and use routine medical care is 20% of the registered voters, and so I'm going to do a little checking on the stats to find out if the 20% holds up.

Why bother when you're going to be disingenuous about it anyway? You only get carded when you look like you might be underage. They're not going to demand your ID for the bolded parts if you're clearly over 30, that would just be patronizing to the customer.

Why bother when you're going to be disingenuous about it anyway? You only get carded when you look like you might be underage. They're not going to demand your ID for the bolded parts if you're clearly over 30, that would just be patronizing to the customer.

Not where I live.
EVERYONE needs an ID to buy Alcohol or Cigarettes.
Don't matter if you are 100.

Other states, like Indiana (the state where the 20% was supposedly from) do the same.

Starting July 1, any licensed server selling alcohol for off-premise consumption will be required to card all Hoosiers–regardless of how old they look. That means all retailers from supermarkets to package liquor stores will be turning away customers without identification.

Not where I live.
EVERYONE needs an ID to buy Alcohol or Cigarettes.
Don't matter if you are 100.

Well I've been to many parts of the States on several occasions, I'm 29, I'm a smoker and they haven't given a crap about my ID anywhere in the last 8 years neither for tobacco, nor alcohol. The only ID's they cared about were the Presidents on the money bills.

Well I've been to many parts of the States on several occasions, I'm 29, I'm a smoker and they haven't given a crap about my ID anywhere in the last 8 years neither for tobacco, nor alcohol. The only ID's they cared about were the Presidents on the money bills.

Different states, different laws.

Still, everyone gets old by being young first and so they have been looking at licenses for a LONG time, and so it doesn't matter that you are 70, they were checking licenses back in 1960 when you were 21 for alcohol.

Add that to the people who drive?
Really 20% of people who vote DON'T have drivers licenses?
I find that one alone hard to believe. We have more cars than people.

I've started to find some figures that certainly make that number seem questionable:


About 87 percent of 19-year-olds in 1983 had their licenses.
In 1983, between 84 percent and 88 percent of people in their late 50s and early 60s had a driver's license.
Now those percentages are in the 95-percent range.

That was a Michigan study.
Seems like much more reasonable numbers.

And they don't travel on airplanes for the last two decades?
And they don't travel out of the country?
And they don't need a picture ID to open a bank account or cash a check.
And they don't need a picture ID for access to medical care and records
etc, etc, etc

It just seems HIGHLY unlikely to me that that many people have no ID.
Yet are registered to Vote.

Arthur

Yes there is.

Section 1104: Establishes a single set of operating rules regarding eligibility and claims status, electronic funds transfers, healthcare payment and remittance rules, health claims, enrollment in health plans, health plan premium payments, referral authorizations, and unique health plan identifiers, for the purpose of simplifying the administration of healthcare. The operating rules will be consensus-based and will reflect the business rules of health plans and healthcare providers, as well as operation under the standards issued under HIPPA.

HIPPA requires people to be identified by a valid government issued ID.

Don't believe me, then simply try checking into a hospital or getting your records out of one without a valid picture ID.
Not gonna happen.

Arthur

No I don't believe you Arthur. And as a matter of fact, I have checked my aunt into the a hospital twice this year alone and a rehab center to boot. And not once was a valid government issued ID required.

I also transferred her records from one physician's office to another and they did not require a government issued ID card either.

No I don't believe you Arthur. And as a matter of fact, I have checked my aunt into the a hospital twice this year alone and a rehab center to boot. And not once was a valid government issued ID required.

I also transferred her records from one physician's office to another and they did not require a government issued ID card either.

Well I don't believe you either Joe.

When my wife was ill we had to go to a lot of doctors and a lot of hospitals and get a lot of treatments (infusions, CAT scans, blood tests, operations, X-Rays, Radiation treatments etc etc )

Every single one of the Clinics, Hospitals and Labs required a Govt Picture ID to register (after that I didn't always have to show it, but I did on the initial visit) and when she got real ill I had to have my picture ID and a Signed and Notarized Power of Attorney to get her records or deal with her treatment.

There are now stiff penalites for releasing medical information to others that aren't authoized to see it and so HIPPA requires everyone to be authorized to begin with.

The hospitals are also very automated and require your Picture ID when you register and it's verified against your Insurance card. After that a band is put on and you use that, but first the ID is required.

Arthur

Well I don't believe you either Joe.

When my wife was ill we had to go to a lot of doctors and a lot of hospitals and get a lot of treatments (infusions, CAT scans, blood tests, operations, X-Rays, Radiation treatments etc etc )

Every single one of the Clinics, Hospitals and Labs required a Govt Picture ID to register (after that I didn't always have to show it, but I did on the initial visit) and when she got real ill I had to have my picture ID and a Signed and Notarized Power of Attorney to get her records or deal with her treatment.

There are now stiff penalites for releasing medical information to others that aren't authoized to see it and so HIPPA requires everyone to be authorized to begin with.

The hospitals are also very automated and require your Picture ID when you register and it's verified against your Insurance card. After that a band is put on and you use that, but first the ID is required.

Arthur

A couple of things for you to think about Arthur. Perhaps the hospitals where you live do require government issued picture IDs. But that doesn't mean every hospital has a similar requirement. It is one of those logical fallacies that you folks on the right are so fond of these days.

Here is another thing for you to think about, a hospital/emergency room is not going to refuse admittance because a patient does not have ID. The law requires admission if it is medically necessary.

And finally I have signed many an admission form and HIPPA document for my aunt over the past several years and not once was I asked for a government issue ID.

But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, Republican hypocrisy. You guys say you are all against government intrusion into our lives and state mandates (e.g. healthcare) but for some reason have no problem with the greatest intrusion of all the right to vote. In order to exercise our right to vote you want to require a government issued ID card.

A couple of things for you to think about Arthur. Perhaps the hospitals where you live do require government issued picture IDs. But that doesn't mean every hospital has a similar requirement. It is one of those logical fallacies that you folks on the right are so fond of these days.

Her treatment spanned 5 states Joe.
Didn't matter, it was always the same, first produce your ID.


Here is another thing for you to think about, a hospital/emergency room is not going to refuse admittance because a patient does not have ID. The law requires admission if it is medically necessary.

So, not all treatments are done in the ER.


And finally I have signed many an admission form and HIPPA document for my aunt over the past several years and not once was I asked for a government issue ID.

I don't believe you.
Has to do with the stiff penalties associated with patient record privacy.
Part of Obama Care was to increase the use of computer records.
Part of the gaurantee in doing that was to assure patient record confidentiality.
The way that is done is make sure everyone is who they say they are and is authorized to see them.

Arthur

I don't believe you.

That is consistent, folks with your political point of view often seek to avoid truth in order to support their political ideology.


Has to do with the stiff penalties associated with patient record privacy.
Part of Obama Care was to increase the use of computer records.
Part of the gaurantee in doing that was to assure patient record confidentiality.
The way that is done is make sure everyone is who they say they are and is authorized to see them.

Arthur

So what does computerized records have to do with government issued picture IDs? Nothing.

And what does that have to do with the hypocrisy of the Republican/your position? Nothing.

You don't want a government mandate for healthcare. So why is it a government mandate for national ID card any better. Oh that is right, you guys want to disenfranchise voters in order to you better odds of political success. This is just another in a long line of Republican hypocrisies.

p/s There are 50 states in the union.

And they don't travel on airplanes for the last two decades?
And they don't travel out of the country?
And they don't need a picture ID to open a bank account or cash a check.
And they don't need a picture ID for access to medical care and records
etc, etc, etc

It just seems HIGHLY unlikely to me that that many people have no ID.
Yet are registered to Vote.

You're right. Probably only 1 in 100 people doesn't do any of those things.

Do you want to deny them the right to vote?

You're right. Probably only 1 in 100 people doesn't do any of those things.

Do you want to deny them the right to vote?

No, I want them to get a govt issued picture ID so they can prove they are eligible to vote.

Since every person legally driving a car has one and nearly every person got one when they were 21 so they could buy alcohol and every person who flys or crosses the borders has one, it clearly is not a difficult hurdle.

By the way, I really like the Canadian solution where someone with a valid photo ID can vouch for the identity of one other person as a reasonable solution for those who for some unusual reason hasn't been able to get one.

Note:

In 2000, 88% of the driving age population was licensed to drive a motor vehicle. (in 1975 it was 83% and it's never been lower since then)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm

But that understates the number of people with identification since people who DID drive but stop because of age or other reasons tend to get a State issued ID card, since they still need an ID.

All states, usually through the same agency that issues driver's licenses, provide identification cards for people who do not drive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_license_in_the_United_States

Which kinda proves that that 20% number being bandied about is totally bogus.

As I suspected.

That is consistent, folks with your political point of view often seek to avoid truth in order to support their political ideology.

No Joe, having just spent an inordinate amount of time in clinics, hospitals, labs and treatment centers I'm quite familiar with their procedures and at everyone of them a photo id was required to sign in (they in fact made a copy of it for their HIPPA records, for when they get audited (and they DO get audited to show compliance)


So what does computerized records have to do with government issued picture IDs? Nothing.

Because there was lots of concerns about privacy issues as the medical records became computerized and so the HIPPA rules about veriication of the person being treated and whose records they were, were instituted along with stiff penalties for violations of privacy rules.


So why is it a government mandate for national ID card any better.

Actually it's a STATE mandate.
There are no Federal elections and no National ID card.
You are always voting to elect someone from your State.


you guys want to disenfranchise voters in order to you better odds of political success.

No. Clearly getting an ID is something that is not hard to do.
But we would like more efficient elections and, like the POTUS ruling, verification that only eligible voters voted.

Finally, if this were such a Democrat/Republican issue, why did they just institute essentially the same Voter ID requirements in Canada?

Let's take the larger quote that you pulled that from:


While the record contains no evidence that the fraud SEA 483 addresses—in-person voter impersonation at polling places—has actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s outcome.



Did you miss that bolded part?

Should Indiana wait for it to happen in Indiana before it does something to prevent it in Indiana,or maybe a more rational plan is to learn from events in other states and take proactive measures to prevent it from happening in Indiana the first place?

Once again, the postion of the SCOTUS, since you keep ignoring it:

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

Which is best done via a Govt issued Picture ID.

Arthur

No Joe, having just spent an inordinate amount of time in clinics, hospitals, labs and treatment centers I'm quite familiar with their procedures and at everyone of them a photo id was required to sign in (they in fact made a copy of it for their HIPPA records, for when they get audited (and they DO get audited to show compliance)

My aunt does not have a government issued photo ID card. She only has her Social Security Card. So she and the thousands/millions like her would not be able to access medical services if what you are claiming is true. And clearly that is not the case.



Because there was lots of concerns about privacy issues as the medical records became computerized and so the HIPPA rules about veriication of the person being treated and whose records they were, were instituted along with stiff penalties for violations of privacy rules.

So, HIPPA has noting to do with photo IDs and healthcare. This is another in a long series of canards. As previously pointed out I have admitted my aunt twice this year alone into a hospital, changed physicians and admitted her to a rehab center and not once been asked to provide a photo ID. And if I were, I would not be able to provide it because she doesn't have one.



Actually it's a STATE mandate.
There are no Federal elections and no National ID card.
You are always voting to elect someone from your State.



What does that have to do with the hair on a rats derriere? Nothing. Did I say federal ID? No. I said government issued ID. And state government is still a government or are you saying state intrusion into the lives of individuals is somehow different from federal intrusion into the private lives of individuals - that state mandates are somehow different from federal mandates? Government intrusion is government intrusion is government intrusion no matter which government agency exercises it.



No. Clearly getting an ID is something that is not hard to do.
But we would like more efficient elections and, like the POTUS ruling, verification that only eligible voters voted.

Why don't you try telling that to my aunt and the millions like her. She is physically infirm, cannot ambulate and on oxygen 24 hours a day 7 days a week. She is a military widow and cannot collect her benefits because she cannot get a state issued ID. So your statements in this regard reflect a signficant myopia.


Finally, if this were such a Democrat/Republican issue, why did they just institute essentially the same Voter ID requirements in Canada?

Using your logic, Canada and other industrial countries have long had universal healthcare. So why are you guys (Republicans/Tea Partiers) so against it.

And the issue you keep avoiding is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. You guys say you are all against government intrusion into the lives of individuals. But then the biggest intrusion of all, the right to vote, is something you guys are actively advocating.

My aunt does not have a government issued photo ID card. She only has her Social Security Card. So she and the thousands/millions like her would not be able to access medical services if what you are claiming is true. And clearly that is not the case.

Don't believe you Joe.
You don't get on and off a base with out a picture ID.


So, HIPPA has noting to do with photo IDs and healthcare. This is another in a long series of canards. As previously pointed out I have admitted my aunt twice this year alone into a hospital, changed physicians and admitted her to a rehab center and not once been asked to provide a photo ID. And if I were, I would not be able to provide it because she doesn't have one.

It most certainly does Joe.

You really think that a Medical Establishment should give someone's medical records to someone based on presenting a SSN card?
Really?
That's all that you want between you and your medical history is knowing an 8 digit number?

You really think that all one needs is a SSN card to prove who they are?

BS

If that was the case no one would bother with insuring more than one person in the family.

Each one could take turns using the SSN card and claiming they were that person.

Indeed, you could use anyone's SSN in your age group.

Which is why claiming you can ID someone by just an SSN is BS.

Arthur

Upon deeper reflection, although 20% of Americans currently risk possible disenfranchisement as a result of these new requirements, I doubt that's the primary intention behind these sorts of moves. It sounds like more of a right-wing reactionary response to the changing economic and political climate. Certain politicians probably feel they have much to gain by appealing to the xenophobe vote and making sure none of them illegal Mexikins are defrauding the polls in order to get Democrats elected (but why would they vote Democrat when it's mostly the Republicans' friends illegally hiring them in the first place?).

It's kind of like how they wanted "proper ID" confirming Obama's birth credentials, just to make sure Kenyan Muslims aren't taking over the White House; now they want to make sure Democrats aren't winning elections by trucking in hordes of foreign illegals, which must be their explanation for why Pokémon-quoting, lady-groping Republicans are doing so poorly at the moment. If it has the effect of disenfranchising slightly more legal Democrat voters than Republican voters in the process, then that's just an "accidental" bonus.

If that's the case, why did Canada recently implement essentially the same requirement?

If that's the case, why did Canada recently implement essentially the same requirement?

Who said it was recent? I'm not aware of any substantial changes in the voting laws since I first voted 10 years ago, we have multiple methods by which one may be identified, it's extremely easy to acquire a valid identification by many different methods, and if all that fails, you just need one person to take an oath and vouch for you. If none of these options are able to accomodate you, you can contact an elections official and they'll make sure you're able to vote one way or another, even if they have to send someone to your home to collect your vote in person.

I'm all for America making sure its voters aren't illegal Mexikins. I simply wonder why it's suddenly a matter of national urgency now but wasn't a problem during the GWB years. It doesn't sound like it's as convenient to obtain a valid ID as it is to get groceries, which is how it should be before such an ID is required.

Who said it was recent? I'm not aware of any substantial changes in the voting laws since I first voted 10 years ago

It was changed in 2007.

And as I've already said, I have no problem with allowing the Vouching for one other voter, provided that person is registered to vote and has a Govt Picture ID.


C. Voting Procedures
Part 9 of the Canada Elections Act details the procedures and rules that govern the conduct of the vote. The preceding parts of the Act deal with preparation for the vote. The series of amendments in Bill C-31 dealing with voting procedures seek to give effect to two of the key themes developed by the Committee in the course of its review of the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations: voter identification and voter fraud.

1. Identification at the Polls
In the course of its deliberations the Committee was struck by the absence of any requirement for an elector to confirm his or her identity when presenting himself or herself at a polling station to vote. As long as the person’s name is on the list of electors, he or she is entitled to vote. Identification may be required only when an election official, or the candidate, or his or her representative at a polling station, have reason to doubt the identity or right to vote of an individual wishing to vote (section 144). If challenged, a voter must present “satisfactory proof of identity and residence.” The Act, however, does not prescribe what is satisfactory “proof.”(11)

Further, should the prospective voter not have satisfactory proof of identity and address when challenged, he or she may still be permitted to vote upon taking a prescribed oath (section 144(2)). The Committee considered this lack of proper identification to be a significant deficiency in the voting process and one that could encourage fraudulent voting practices.

a. Proof of Identity and Address (Clauses 14 and 21)
In response to the Committee’s concerns, the government proposed a series of amendments in clause 21 of the bill that closely followed the detailed recommendations of the Committee.(12) Clause 21 amends section 143 by requiring that prospective voters provide one piece of identification, issued by any level of government, containing a photograph and the name and address of the elector (section 143(2)(a)). Alternatively, the voter may present two pieces of identification, each of which establishes his or her name, and one of which establishes his or her address, if those pieces of identification have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer (section 143(2)(b)). These alternative pieces of identification may be authorized regardless of who issued them (section 143(2.1)). The amendments require the Chief Electoral Officer to publish, each year and within three days of the issue of an election writ, a list of the types of identification that are adequate alternatives to government-issued photo identification (section 143(7)).

In response to concerns raised during the House of Commons Committee hearings by a number of witnesses, the bill was amended to provide that a document issued by the Government of Canada certifying a person to be an Indian within the meaning of the Indian Act constitutes an authorized piece of identification under section 143(2)(b) (section 143(2.2)).

The new requirements for proof of identity will be communicated to voters in advance through the voter information card, referred to in the Act as the “notice of confirmation of registration.” Clause 14(2) amends section 95(2) to require that voter information cards contain a notice that proof of an elector’s identity and residence is required before the elector will be permitted to vote.

b. Taking an Oath (Clause 21)
If an elector has no suitable identification, he or she may take a prescribed oath provided that he or she is vouched for by another person whose name is on the list of electors in the same polling division as the elector and who has the required identification prescribed in the preceding subsection of the Act (section 143(3)). The individual who vouches for the elector must do so by taking an oath.

The amendments require that persons who administer an oath to those who lack the required identification must inform the oath-taker of the qualifications for voting and the penalty that may be imposed on persons who vote or attempt to vote knowing that they are not eligible to do so (section 143.1).

The original provision for requiring the taking of an oath where an election official doubts the eligibility of an individual to vote (former section 144(2)) has been preserved, with some modification. The amended provision (section 144) enables election officials, candidates and their representatives to demand that an elector take an oath if they have “reasonable doubts” concerning that person’s eligibility to vote, notwithstanding that the elector may have adequate proof of identification.

c. No Serial Vouching (Clauses 21 and 38)
To prevent a practice sometimes referred to as “serial vouching,” the Act is amended to limit vouching so that an elector may vouch for only one person (section 143(5)). It also bans vouching by electors who have been vouched for (section 143(6)). This amendment addresses the Committee’s strong criticism of the practice, which was made in light of testimony concerning abuses associated with vouching.(13)

The prohibition against vouching is supported by amendments to the enforcement provisions of the Act. Clauses 38(1) to 38(3) amend section 489(2) of the Act by creating the offences of vouching for more than one elector and vouching after being vouched for (“vouchee” acting as voucher).

2. Special Procedures for Polling Day Registration (Clause 26)
The Act permits an individual whose name does not appear on the electoral list to register to vote on polling day provided that he or she has “satisfactory proof of identity and residence.” Alternatively, the individual may take an oath if an eligible voter whose name is on the list of electors for the same polling division vouches for the individual by taking an oath (section 161).

Clause 26(1) amends section 161 of the Act to make the proof-of-identity requirements for polling-day elector registration consistent with the new proof-of-identity requirements for voting in clause 21 (section 143(2)). That is, an individual wishing to register on polling day must produce a government-issued piece of identification that contains his or her photograph, name and address (section 143(2)(a)). Alternatively, the individual may provide two pieces of identification that have been authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer (section 143(2)(b)). If the individual lacks the required identification, he or she may take an oath, provided he or she is vouched for by a person who: is listed on the list of electors in the same polling division; has the identification required in sections 143(2)(a) or (b); and who vouches by taking an oath. Serial vouching is prohibited under this procedure as well (clause 26(2), sections 161(6) and (7)).


http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c31&Parl=39&Ses=1&source=library_prb

And no, getting an ID is not difficult here either.
Every legal Driver has one, and as shown, 88% of people old enough to drive already have one.
Or you can get a State ID without even taking the driving test.
Or you can go to a post office and send off for a passport.

I imagine it's pretty much the same as it is for you.

Arthur

Don't believe you Joe.
You don't get on and off a base with out a picture ID.

LOL, who said she lived on a military base? Grab a hold Arthur, retired military folk don't live on base. And the fact remains, her military dependent ID expired and she has not been able to get it replaced because her physical infirmities prevent her from getting a state ID.

And the fact remains that I have checked her in to two hospitals this year alone and she has never had to show a picture ID. So your arguments about HIPPA are bogus.

Oh stay true to form and runaway from the truth Arthur. No matter how much you and Limbaugh refuse to acknowledge truth, it will still remain the truth.



It most certainly does Joe.

You really think that a Medical Establishment should give someone's medical records to someone based on presenting a SSN card?
Really?
That's all that you want between you and your medical history is knowing an 8 digit number?

You really think that all one needs is a SSN card to prove who they are?

BS

A yeah along with birth date and other personal information. You know what, I can call up my brokerage accounts or bank accounts and talk to them about some very private information without showing them a photo ID.


If that was the case no one would bother with insuring more than one person in the family.

Each one could take turns using the SSN card and claiming they were that person.

Indeed, you could use anyone's SSN in your age group.

Which is why claiming you can ID someone by just an SSN is BS.

Arthur


Oh hogwash Arthur. I would think that someone on the Social Security end would get wise when patient X a female started showing up as a male by medical authorities and being reported at different ages. And there is virtually little difference between my private medical ID card and a Medicare Card.

The unpleasant facts for you Arthur is that your arguments are without merit. As I have said repeatedly, I checked my aunt in to hospitals twice this year and a rehab facility, and not once was she or I asked to provide a picture ID. If they had, she would not have been able to provide one because of her physical infirmities.

And finally, you are avoiding the principal issue here, Republican hypocrisy. Republicans claim to be against government issued mandates and then turn around with the biggest mandate ever - requiring government issued ID cards in order to exercise our Constitutional rights.

And the fact remains that I have checked her in to two hospitals this year alone and she has never had to show a picture ID. So your arguments about HIPPA are bogus.
You can post that as often as you want Joe, it's not valid evidence, particularly considering your previous posting history.


A yeah along with birth date and other personal information. You know what, I can call up my brokerage accounts or bank accounts and talk to them about some very private information without showing them a photo ID.

Not part of HIPPA Joe.


Oh hogwash Arthur. I would think that someone on the Social Security end would get wise when patient X a female started showing up as a male by medical authorities and being reported at different ages. And there is virtually little difference between my private medical ID card and a Medicare Card.

Nah, women of roughly the same age would share one number.
Men of roughly the same age would share another.
The fact is, if ALL you use is a SSN and someone's word as to identity there would be widespread fraud in the healthcare system.



The unpleasant facts for you Arthur is that your arguments are without merit.

Not unpleasant for me in the least. My view is clearly winning this argument.

Clearly like Canada and 14 US States, the world is going to picture IDs for voter identification and sure some states will hold out for a while, but this trend is inevitable.

Which is clearly unpleasant only for you.

As to voter turnout, again false:

“I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

Arthur

Why bother when you're going to be disingenuous about it anyway? You only get carded when you look like you might be underage. They're not going to demand your ID for the bolded parts if you're clearly over 30, that would just be patronizing to the customer.
Not true.

I am over 50 years old and get asked for my ID all the time. (With the exception of places I have been to enough times that they know me.)

Not true.

I am over 50 years old and get asked for my ID all the time. (With the exception of places I have been to enough times that they know me.)

Well in Hawaii, California and Florida, they really didn't give a crap when I'd go to buy wine, beer or cigarettes, and on the very few occasions when I would indeed get identified, they didn't care that they had no way of verifying whether an Alberta driver's license is authentic or not. I can certainly testify that the vast majority of times I bought alcohol or cigarettes over the last 5 years they didn't identify me, although they tended to be a bit more suspicious when I was freshly-shaved. Point being, don't assume that everyone who smokes or drinks has an ID unless you have relevant stats on that. Don't assume everyone goes in for routine healthcare either, even if they might in fact be entitled to it. They still have the right to vote for the government which is going to control what they can and can't do with their lives.

It's not that this one move in itself is worthy of raising alarm bells across the continent. It's the series of suspicious and arguably outright fraudulent practices which have been occurring since the Bush election in 2000, and the narrow-minded focus on eliminating deficiencies which are thought to benefit Democrats more than Republicans. Why was it not an urgent priority to verify proper voting ID and take all possible measures against vote and electoral fraud when GWB was running the show? After an election in which a couple thousand uncounted Florida votes could have made the entire difference, and the guy with less overall votes won the presidency based on a blatantly partisan court decision, why were these kinds of reforms not immediately brought off the backburner?

Why was it not an urgent priority to verify proper voting ID and take all possible measures against vote and electoral fraud when GWB was running the show? After an election in which a couple thousand uncounted Florida votes could have made the entire difference, and the guy with less overall votes won the presidency based on a blatantly partisan court decision, why were these kinds of reforms not immediately brought off the backburner?
I think you've just explained why it should be a concern... :shrug:

Do you think the polls should just take my word for who I am? :bugeye:

I think you've just explained why it should be a concern... :shrug:

Indeed. Why is it suddenly an urgent national priority now, when they already had 8 years of near-unchallenged conservative domination in which to implement such reforms? Why did the Republicans pay so little attention to the electoral deficiencies from which they benefited in the first place?


Do you think the polls should just take my word for who I am? :bugeye:

Not at all, they should most definitely check. But if the powers that be aren't going to provide reasonable accomodations to make sure legitimate voters aren't disenfranchised because of genuine difficulties in obtaining the proper identification, why not delay the reforms until such concerns have been adequately addressed? After all these decades of complacence, why does it suddenly become an urgent top priority only once the old boys' club faces a challenge to its future legitimacy and stranglehold on the system?

You can post that as often as you want Joe, it's not valid evidence, particularly considering your previous posting history.

Now that is a laugh Arthur coming from you. :) Here is fact Arthur, your claims about needing a government issued ID to receive medical care in the US are bogus.

And the COBRA act of 1986 requires emergency medical treatment to be rendered regardless of ability to pay or any lack of documentation.


Not part of HIPPA Joe.

Did I say it was? No I didn't. That is you creating a straw man. I demonstrated that a state issued government photo ID is not needed to ensure privacy as you had claimed.

Two, medical treatment is not predicated on HIPPA. HIPPA documents are signed at admission to ensure that the patient knows their rights under HIPPA and authorize the treating agencies to render treatment and share information as needed with other providers. So why do you need a photo ID as you claimed to get medical care? Short answer you don't! :)

So your claim is completely bogus.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf


Nah, women of roughly the same age would share one number.
Men of roughly the same age would share another.
The fact is, if ALL you use is a SSN and someone's word as to identity there would be widespread fraud in the healthcare system.

Well that is the way it is today Arthur. That is the way it has been since the creation of Medicare more than a half century ago and we are not seeing widespread fraud. And my privately issued healthcare insurance card is no better in terms of security than my Social Security Card. But we don't see wide spread fraud in Social Security or private healthcare insurance.

Reality is such a rough place for you and your fellow Republicans Arthur.:)



Not unpleasant for me in the least. My view is clearly winning this argument.

LOL, Oh now we get the the beating on the chest and self proclaimed victor phase. I love it.


Clearly like Canada and 14 US States, the world is going to picture IDs for voter identification and sure some states will hold out for a while, but this trend is inevitable.

Which is clearly unpleasant only for you.

As to voter turnout, again false:

“I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

Arthur

Using your reasoning, why are you and your fellow Republicans in opposition to universal healthcare? In Canada and many other industrial countries universal healthcare has been the standard for more for many decades.

Back your straw man arguments again I see. I didn't say anything about voter turnout. What I did say, and what you continue to runaway from is the hypocrisy demonstrated by people like you and your Republican Party. In this entire discussion, you have not addressed the issue of your hypocrisy.

You want a government issued ID card as a requirement to exercise our rights under our Constitution. And at the same time you and your fellows are vehemently opposed to a government mandate requiring individuals to obtain healthcare insurance. You and your Republicans fellows also claim that you are strict constructionists, meaning if it ain't in the Constitution then it is illegal for government to make a law. So just where is it in the Constitution that says we have to have a government issued ID in order to vote? I suggest you get out you pocket Constitution and show me where it is in the Constitution that gives government that power. But we both know that ain't happening. This is just another in a long series of Republican hypocrisies advocated by you and your fellows.

Indeed. Why is it suddenly an urgent national priority now, when they already had 8 years of near-unchallenged conservative domination in which to implement such reforms? Why did the Republicans pay so little attention to the electoral deficiencies from which they benefited in the first place?
Wheels of justice move slowly? But why was it considered needed then and now considered a hinderance?


Not at all, they should most definitely check. But if the powers that be aren't going to provide reasonable accomodations to make sure legitimate voters aren't disenfranchised because of genuine difficulties in obtaining the proper identification, why not delay the reforms until such concerns have been adequately addressed? After all these decades of complacence, why does it suddenly become an urgent top priority only once the old boys' club faces a challenge to its future legitimacy and stranglehold on the system?
Never noticed an ID being more difficult to obtain for any one group of people. In fact, I've found the DMV to be equally ill-located for me anytime I've needed to get there... But I manage to get there.

Two, medical treatment is not predicated on HIPPA. HIPPA documents are signed at admission to ensure that the patient knows their rights under HIPPA and authorize the treating agencies to render treatment and share information as needed with other providers. So why do you need a photo ID as you claimed to get medical care? Short answer you don't!

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/privacysummary.pdf

No, the answer is except in an emergency, you do.

HIPPA is pretty clear about privacy of your medical records, which implies KNOWING who YOU are:


(1) To the Individual. A covered entity may disclose protected health information to the individual who is the subject of the information.

And


Authorization. A covered entity must obtain the individual’s written authorization for any use or disclosure of protected health information that is not for treatment, payment or health care operations or otherwise permitted or required by the Privacy

Which means they first have to identify who you are.

And


Disclosure Accounting. Individuals have a right to an accounting of the disclosures of their protected health information

Which means every interaction with the health provider requires them to postitively identify WHO they are dealing with, even the patient.

And finally:


Personal Representatives. The Privacy Rule requires a covered entity to treat a "personal representative" the same as the individual, with respect to uses and disclosures of the individual’s protected health information, as well as the individual’s rights under the Rule. A personal representative is a person legally authorized to make health care decisions on an individual’s behalf

Which is why you have to also provide ID. A SSN won't cut it anymore.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/examples/index.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page
http://www.nursezone.com/nursing-news-events/more-news/Nurse-Pleads-Guilty-to-HIPAA-Violation_28082.aspx
http://healthlaw.ncbar.org/newsletters/prognosismay2011/hippa.aspx
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100727a.html


You want a government issued ID card as a requirement to exercise our rights under our Constitution.

Yes, because otherwise we can't tell if you are Eligible to Vote.


There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

Not at all, they should most definitely check. But if the powers that be aren't going to provide reasonable accomodations to make sure legitimate voters aren't disenfranchised because of genuine difficulties in obtaining the proper identification, why not delay the reforms until such concerns have been adequately addressed?

Except you haven't shown they aren't adequately addresssed today.
Indeed, it is pretty easy to get a DL, State ID or Passport.
To claim it's a significant burden is silly considering almost all adults do at least one of the following: Drive, fly, buy Alcohol, buy guns, travel outside the country, use medical facilities.


After all these decades of complacence, why does it suddenly become an urgent top priority only once the old boys' club faces a challenge to its future legitimacy and stranglehold on the system?

Except that's BS:

“I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php


Arthur

They still have the right to vote for the government which is going to control what they can and can't do with their lives.

Not everyone has the right to vote (you can lose it based on criminal activity or if illegally here, never get it for instance)

So you have to identify who you are to claim your right to Vote.

Which is the same reason they passed Voter ID legislation in Canada.

Arthur

No, the answer is except in an emergency, you do.

HIPPA is pretty clear about privacy of your medical records, which implies KNOWING who YOU are:

LOL for some reason you don't seem to understand the difference between medical treatment and medical records. There is a difference.

Showing up in person is pretty good evidence you are you. As previously proven, it is not required to present proof of identity to receive medical treatment in The United States.




And

Which means they first have to identify who you are.

And

Which means every interaction with the health provider requires them to postitively identify WHO they are dealing with, even the patient.

And finally:

Which is why you have to also provide ID. A SSN won't cut it anymore.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/enforcement/examples/index.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page
http://www.nursezone.com/nursing-news-events/more-news/Nurse-Pleads-Guilty-to-HIPAA-Violation_28082.aspx
http://healthlaw.ncbar.org/newsletters/prognosismay2011/hippa.aspx
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/07/20100727a.html

Out of all that crap, not one piece of it relates to the rendering of medical care. It relates to the transference of medical records to external parties. So your claim that ID is required to get medical treatment The United States is just more, bunk.



Yes, because otherwise we can't tell if you are Eligible to Vote.

And still after about a dozen of these posts you still refuse to write about the hypocrisy of your positions. You and your fellow Republicans/Tea Partiers are all against government mandates. But then when it comes to voting you are all for throwing up barriers to exercise our right to vote. You cannot even prove that the problem you claim you are solving even exists. And I repeat my challenge to you, since you and your Republicans are strict constructionalists, where does the Constitution say government has the right to require state issued ID cards in order to exercise the right to vote?

And finally, you want to cite Canada and our other "socialist" friends and neighbors as a reason to use voter ID cards, but you don't want to copy their universal healthcare systems. Republican, hypocrisy is thy name.

Except you haven't shown they aren't adequately addresssed today.
Indeed, it is pretty easy to get a DL, State ID or Passport.
To claim it's a significant burden is silly considering almost all adults do at least one of the following: Drive, fly, buy Alcohol, buy guns, travel outside the country, use medical facilities.

Except if you are one of the previously mentioned individuals who are most likely not Republican.



Except that's BS:

“I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php


Arthur

Except that your source has a record of some extreme and unorthodox/sloppy work. And the methods used are controversial to put it nicely.

LOL for some reason you don't seem to understand the difference between medical treatment and medical records. There is a difference.

Yes one preceeds the other.
But they have to know who you are to file the records and allow later access.


Showing up in person is pretty good evidence you are you. As previously proven, it is not required to present proof of identity to receive medical treatment in The United States.

No it's not.
They have to TAG the records to a specific identity.
And so they require an ID.
In an emergency they will bypass the ID requirement, but for routine treatment they won't, and most medical care is routine.


Out of all that crap, not one piece of it relates to the rendering of medical care. It relates to the transference of medical records to external parties. So your claim that ID is required to get medical treatment The United States is just more, bunk.

No it isn't.
The point is that they get FINED if they allow your records to go to anyone that you don't allow. So it's clear they FIRST have to know who YOU are.


And finally, you want to cite Canada and our other "socialist" friends and neighbors as a reason to use voter ID cards,

Yes, and you have yet to explain why it makes sense there but not here.

Yes one preceeds the other.
But they have to know who you are to file the records and allow later access.

I just love how you won't let reality get in your way Arthur. As previously pointed out on numerous occasions. There is no better proof of you being you than showing up in person and having medical treatment rendered on you.


No it's not.
They have to TAG the records to a specific identity.
And so they require an ID.

Going back to the straw man. Again as previously pointed out, there are many ways other than a state issued ID card to identify an individual. And there is a difference between rendering medical treatment and sharing medical records after the treatment has been rendered - something you appear to have a great deal of difficulty understanding.



No it isn't.
The point is that they get FINED if they allow your records to go to anyone that you don't allow. So it's clear they have to know who YOU is.

This is not germane to the conversation. The facts are that HIPPA has nothing to do with the rendering of treatment. It pertains to sharing medical information with third parties after treatment has been rendered. So your claim that a state issued ID card is mandatory is bogus and completely without merit - in other words fiction.



Yes, and you have yet to explain why it makes sense there but not here.

You still have not addressed the issue of you hypocrisy.

I am not citing Canada in this discussion. You are. So please explain why you want to follow Canada in this case and not follow them when it comes to other issues like universal healthcare.

Why don't you address the issue of your hypocrisy here?

Except that your source has a record of some extreme and unorthodox/sloppy work. And the methods used are controversial to put it nicely.

Typical ad hominum, as expected

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2549/EffectsPhotographicIdentificationVoter.pdf?sequenc e=1

Typical ad hominum, as expected

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/2549/EffectsPhotographicIdentificationVoter.pdf?sequenc e=1

No just a little truth. :) There is a difference. Your source is a fellow at the CATO institute, the same CATO Institute that hires academics and uses them like lawyers - advocates for their/Republican/Tea Party point of view.

http://www.cato.org/people/jeffrey-milyo

You want a study? Here is a better more credible study conducted by researchers from the University of Washington, University of California and University of Arizona who researched the same state and came to a completely different conclusion - that voter ID restrictions did adversely affect voter turnout. They use something alien to Republicans. It's called data and evidence.

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/Indiana_voter.pdf

Milyo's paper was extremely light on data and heavy on opinion - about what you would expect from a conservative rag. What you are doing Arthur is taking a paper written by a paid Republican/conservative advocate and trying to masquerade it off as a legitimate piece of research.

Just more ad hominum

Just more ad hominum

Yeah life is rough for you "conservatives" - having to confront reality and all. :) Your paid Republican/conservative advocate has about as much credibility as the scientists paid by the cigarette industry to convince us that cigarettes are healthy and don't cause cancer.

And you still have not addressed the issue of your hypocrisy on this subject.

Life isn't rough at all for us Republicans Joe.

In case you forgot about the last election results:

Republicans picked up a net total of 63 seats in the House 2010 election, resulting in the highest loss of a party in a House midterm election since 1938, as well as winning 24 out of 37 races in the Senate.

Looking forward to 2012.

Life isn't rough at all for us Republicans Joe.

In case you forgot about the last election results:

Republicans picked up a net total of 63 seats in the House 2010 election, resulting in the highest loss of a party in a House midterm election since 1938, as well as winning 24 out of 37 races in the Senate.

Looking forward to 2012.

I wasn't referring to the midterm election Arthur. That is you changing the subject again. The issue in this thread is the Republican on going effort to make it more difficult for Americans to exercise their right to vote. Because if more Americans vote, it is not good news for Republicans/Tea Baggers. When more people vote Republicans loose elections.

And I didn't say life was rough for you. That is you being sloppy or creating another straw man. I said reality is rough for you Republicans/Tea Baggers. There is a difference Arthur. You guys are evidence and reason challenged. That is why your major Republican donors feel the need to hire advocates to put lip stick on the latest pig they are trying to sell the American public.

Back to the subject, you cannot prove the problem claim to want to fix exists. And you have yet to address all of your previously identified hypocrisies on this issue.

you cannot prove the problem claim to want to fix exists.

And there is no reason I have to.


There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

States don't have to wait for the problem to happen before one takes steps to prevent it in the first place.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2008/80_believe_voters_should_be_required_to_show_photo _id

And there is no reason I have to.

States don't have to wait for the problem to happen before one takes steps to prevent it in the first place.

So you are advocating solving a problem that you don't know exists at the expense of disenfranchising millions of Americans. There is nothing more inefficient Arthur than using government to solve non-existent problems.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2008/80_believe_voters_should_be_required_to_show_photo _id

Back to your conservative "sources" again. :) And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Nothing.

And I am still waiting for you to address your hypocrisies on this subject. You don't want state mandates unless it is to advance party power by limiting the Constitutional right to vote.

And for all you "strict constructionalists" just where is it in the Constitution that the state has the right to mandate voter IDs in order to exercise our Constitutional rights? So you want strict construction of the Constitution except when it conflicts with party power. You guys are sounding pretty scary.

And for all you "strict constructionalists" just where is it in the Constitution that the state has the right to mandate voter IDs in order to exercise our Constitutional rights? So you want strict construction of the Constitution except when it conflicts with party power. You guys are sounding pretty scary.

The SCOTUS already ruled on that Constitutional issue Joe.

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

So you are advocating solving a problem that you don't know exists at the expense of disenfranchising millions of Americans.

Doesn't matter.
Indeed, if fraud exists, by definition we might not know it.
Sorta like embezzling.
You don't know about it until you do.

And, as evidence shows, most people who can vote already have the required ID.
The required ID is easy to get if you don't have one.

The SCOTUS already ruled on that Constitutional issue Joe.

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

LOL, hypocrisy. I repeat were is it in the Constitution that says the state has the right to require an state issued ID in order to exercise Constitutional rights? Oh, that is right you cannot do it. That is why you have been avoiding the issue for the last two dozen posts. And as you know, to a strict constructionaist (Republican) it doesn't matter what the supremes say. It is what the Constitution says or does not say that is important.

Doesn't matter.
Indeed, if fraud exists, by definition we might not know it.
Sorta like embezzling.
You don't know about it until you do.

And, as evidence shows, most people who can vote already have the required ID.
The required ID is easy to get if you don't have one.

Well you see, here is the thing, you cannot prove voter fraud exists. No one has been found guilty in recent times of the crime you are trying to fix. And yeah aliens from outer space might be controlling our government. So do we need to fix that potential problem also?

The bottom line, you still have not addressed your hypocrisies on this issue. You guys are all for strict constructionalism and against mandates and government intrusions into our private lives except when it limits your party's power.

LOL, hypocrisy. I repeat were is it in the Constitution that says the state has the right to require an state issued ID in order to exercise Constitutional rights? Oh, that is right you cannot do it. That is why you have been avoiding the issue for the last two dozen posts.

LOL, no Joe, because I didn't want to take the time to look it up.

But just for you:



Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

So YES Joe, the States can, based on the Constitution, require an ID in order to vote.

LOL, no Joe, because I didn't want to take the time to look it up.

But just for you:

LOL; No Arthur, you are throwing up chaff again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

I repeat, show me where in the Constitution does it say that the state has the right to mandate IDs in order to access our rights? It doesn't.



So YES Joe, the States can, based on the Constitution, require an ID in order to vote.

So Arthur just exactly where does it say that in the Constitution? :) It doesn't.

The bottom line here is that you and your Republican fellows are all for strict constructionism, limited government, small government until it restricts your party's power.

LOL; No Arthur, you are throwing up chaff again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

I repeat, show me where in the Constitution does it say that the state has the right to mandate IDs in order to access our rights? It doesn't.



So Arthur just exactly where does it say that in the Constitution? :) It doesn't..

Why yes it does Joe


Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

It says the State Legislatures have the right to prescribe the MANNER of the elections.

Thus as long as the manner they set is not unconstitutional (can't, for instance, require a "Poll Tax") if a State's Legislature says their MANNER of elections requires a valid state issued Picture ID, that is within the rights granted them by the Constitution, and the ability to do so was upheld by the SCOTUS.

Arthur

Why yes it does Joe



It says the State Legislatures have the right to prescribe the MANNER of the elections.

Thus as long as the manner they set is not unconstitutional (can't, for instance, require a "Poll Tax") if a State's Legislature says their MANNER of elections requires a valid state issued Picture ID, that is within the rights granted them by the Constitution, and the ability to do so was upheld by the SCOTUS.

Arthur

You are still avoiding the hypocrisy issues previously raised Arthur. The Constitution says nothing about needing an state issued ID in order to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment also states that voters cannot be discriminated against based on race which is what your voter ID effectively does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion

And then there is the Fourteenth Amendment:

"Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

And you have yet to addressed the other hypocrisies previously mentioned;

1) Big government, your voter ID expands the need for government services and spending. So you are against big government except when big government advantages your Republican/Tea Party.

2) You and your fellow Republicans don't like government mandates (e.g. healthcare) except when it comes to expanding Republican Party power.

You are still avoiding the hypocrisy issues previously raised Arthur. The Constitution says nothing about needing an state issued ID in order to vote.

Doesn't have to.
Indeed it says nothing about the manner of voting because it EXPLICITLY says it is up to the State Legislature to decide on the manner of voting.

Which thus allows them to require State issued IDs


The Fifteenth Amendment also states that voters cannot be discriminated against based on race which is what your voter ID effectively does.

Except they are not, because anyone can get a State ID card if they want one, and clearly there are no tests of Race to do so, which is why it was upheld by the SCOTUS.

Too bad Joe.

Doesn't have to.
Indeed it says nothing about the manner of voting because it EXPLICITLY says it is up to the State Legislature to decide on the manner of voting.

Which thus allows them to require State issued IDs

And you are ignoring the 14th an 15th Amendments. Don't wanta talk about those do you.



Except they are not, because anyone can get a State ID card if they want one, and clearly there are no tests of Race to do so, which is why it was upheld by the SCOTUS.

Too bad Joe.

LOL, yeah too bad you have repeatedly failed to deal with all of the hypocrisies you have exhibited in this discussion - not to mention the evidence that minorities are adversely affected by this mandate you want to impose upon the nation.

So again, you are against government mandates when your party is against them. And you are for government mandates when it benefits your party and disadvantages the opposition party.

And you are ignoring the 14th an 15th Amendments. Don't wanta talk about those do you.

Sure, but I wasn't aware that the Justice dept had brought suit against any state based on either the 14th or 15th amendments.

Please provide details of who filed these cases.

Sure, but I wasn't aware that the Justice dept had brought suit against any state based on either the 14th or 15th amendments.

Please provide details of who filed these cases.

That has nothing to do with the issues at hand Arthur and the issues that you have been avoiding for last two dozen posts - your hypocrisy on the issue.

That has nothing to do with the issues at hand Arthur

If it has nothing to do with the issue then why did you bring it up Joe?

There are 14 states that require Picture ID and yet the Justice dept hasn't brought suit against any of them based on Amendments 14 or 15, so that is just another Red Herring.

If it has nothing to do with the issue then why did you bring it up Joe?

There are 14 states that require Picture ID and yet the Justice dept hasn't brought suit against any of them based on Amendments 14 or 15, so that is just another Red Herring.

The issue Arthur is your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the Republican Party on this issue. It is the issue you have been avoiding for the last two dozen posts. You and your Republican fellows are against mandates, except when they limit the power of your party. You guys are against big government, except when it limits the power of your party.

The issue Arthur is your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the Republican Party on this issue. It is the issue you have been avoiding for the last two dozen posts. You and your Republican fellows are against mandates, except when they limit the power of your party. You guys are against big government, except when it limits the power of your party.

No Joe, the issue doesn't have anything to do with what you think about me or the Republican party.
Nor does supporting the requirement for a valid ID an endorsement of big government since nearly evryone has an ID already and it's done mainly as a byproduct of the fact that ~95% of adults drive or have a Passport or a State issued ID already, and that for the vast majority of citizens, getting one is not difficult.

The actual issue is simply that there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes and a State Issued Picture ID is a reasonable way for the State to accomplish that.

And I'm also all for phasing it in and making sure that people have the time and opportunity to get a valid ID so that no one gets disenfranchised by this process.

No Joe, the issue doesn't have anything to do with what you think about me or the Republican party.
Nor does supporting the requirement for a valid ID an endorsement of big government since nearly evryone has an ID already and it's done mainly as a byproduct of the fact that ~95% of adults drive or have a Passport or a State issued ID already, and that for the vast majority of citizens, getting one is not difficult.

The actual issue is simply that there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes and a State Issued Picture ID is a reasonable way for the State to accomplish that.

And I'm also all for phasing it in and making sure that people have the time and opportunity to get a valid ID so that no one gets disenfranchised by this process.

I see you are still hoping that the hypocrisy issue will go away. Well it isn't. You are against state mandates except when it limits your party's power. You are a strict constructionalist, except when it gets in the way of your party's big donors. You are against big government, except when it restrains your party's power. Your party is a party of the exceptions and hypocrisy Arthur.

You cannot even prove a voter fraud problem exists and yet you want to fix it and disenfranchise millions of voters in the process. Gee I wonder why? :)

I see you are still hoping that the hypocrisy issue will go away. Well it isn't. You are against state mandates except when it limits your party's power. You are a strict constructionalist, except when it gets in the way of your party's big donors. You are against big government, except when it restrains your party's power. Your party is a party of the exceptions and hypocrisy Arthur.

You cannot even prove a voter fraud problem exists and yet you want to fix it and disenfranchise millions of voters in the process. Gee I wonder why? :)

Joe, the issue doesn't have anything to do with what you think about me or the Republican party.

States don't have to prove that a fraud problem exists anymore than I have to prove a burglary problem exists before putting locks on my doors.

The fact is a strict reading of the Constitution shows that The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; coupled with the SCOTUS ruling that There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes, means that States requiring voters to produce readily available govt issued IDs is perfectly legal.

Joe, the issue doesn't have anything to do with what you think about me or the Republican party.

States don't have to prove that a fraud problem exists anymore than I have to prove a burglary problem exists before putting locks on my doors.

The fact is a strict reading of the Constitution shows that The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; coupled with the SCOTUS ruling that There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes, means that States requiring voters to produce readily available govt issued IDs is perfectly legal.

No matter how much you try to avoid the issue of hypocrisy here it is not going away. You and your Republican fellows are all against state mandates, except when it restrains your party's power.

You guys are all for smaller government except when your guys are in office or when you want to use the power of government to restrict access to the ballot.

And your so called "strict reading" is a selective "strict reading" - ignoring the 14th and 15th Amendments.

LOL

Joe, requiring IDs doesn't make our government get any bigger.
That's insane.

And you already struck out on the 14th and 15th Amendment BS

The Supremes ruling on this wasn't even close, it was a 6-to-3 ruling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

The SCOTUS rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification.

It might have been because at trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements.

Probably because the state law makes provisions for people who would have difficulty (in nursing homes for instance) and also allows you to vote on a provisional ballot and then gives you 10 days to make it to a courthouse and provide the ID if you don't have one.

More importanly, in 2010 the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law by a 4-1 decision and since the SCOTUS upheld the previous rulings by the Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and so it's been tested and approved by every level of court both State and Federal.

Finally, because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, thus similar laws in the other states will not likely face any challenge at all.

Just a waste of the court's time.

Arthur


http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jul/01/court-upholds-voter-id-law/

LOL

Joe, requiring IDs doesn't make our government get any bigger.
That's insane.

LOL I suppose I am just not into that magical Republican/Tea Party line of thought that thinks government can do more without really growing government or expenses. You want government to produce millions more in IDs and you want workers to verify an check IDs at polling stations and all that at no additional cost? What is Koch going to fund this change? This is the kind of budget thinking that allowed Republicans to blow away the nations finances with the George Jr. and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney administration.

So you are telling me that government can provide all the additional IDs at no cost to government and without more staffing or are you admitting that the intent of this exercise is to disenfranchise millions of voters?


And you already struck out on the 14th and 15th Amendment BS

The Supremes ruling on this wasn't even close, it was a 6-to-3 ruling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

The SCOTUS rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification.

It might have been because at trial, the plaintiffs were unable to produce any witnesses who claimed they were not able to meet the law's requirements.

Probably because the state law makes provisions for people who would have difficulty (in nursing homes for instance) and also allows you to vote on a provisional ballot and then gives you 10 days to make it to a courthouse and provide the ID if you don't have one.

More importanly, in 2010 the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law by a 4-1 decision and since the SCOTUS upheld the previous rulings by the Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and so it's been tested and approved by every level of court both State and Federal.

Finally, because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, thus similar laws in the other states will not likely face any challenge at all.

Just a waste of the court's time.

Arthur

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jul/01/court-upholds-voter-id-law/

You are avoiding the core issue here of your and your party's hypocrisy yet again Arthur. :D

Your digression into the supreme court decisions is not relevant. But I would remind you the US Supreme Court also produced the Dred Scott. But then you are a strict constructionalist, so what do you care about supreme court decisions? Another hypocrisy.

LOL I suppose I am just not into that magical Republican/Tea Party line of thought that thinks government can do more without really growing government or expenses. You want government to produce millions more in IDs and you want workers to verify an check IDs at polling stations and all that at no additional cost? What is Koch going to fund this change? This is the kind of budget thinking that allowed Republicans to blow away the nations finances with the George Jr. and Deficits Don't Matter Cheney administration.

Actually the IDs are there to SPEED up the process at the lines. So it saves money. The current process is very slow and laborious.

And IDs are very cheap to make and last for many years so the cost, of the few million extra IDs that might have to be made is virtually nothing and is not likely to require hiring any additional govt employees since every state already has multiple DMV offices that already handle the creation of these IDs for many more millions of people every year.


So you are telling me that government can provide all the additional IDs at no cost to government and without more staffing

Yeah, pretty much.


Your digression into the supreme court decisions is not relevant. But I would remind you the US Supreme Court also produced the Dred Scott.

Which of course has nothing at all to do with anything, unless you are saying we should never rely on the today's Supreme Court opinions because of decisions an entirely different court made 140 years ago. And of course it's not just the Supreme Court that concurred. It's the Indiana Supreme Court as well as Federal Courts.

Actually the IDs are there to SPEED up the process at the lines. So it saves money. The current process is very slow and laborious.

Oh hogwash - more Republican magical thinking at best. Today you walk in. Tell them your name. They look up your name and you sign the voter log. Under you scheme You walk in. Find your ID card. They validate your ID card. They look up your name. You sign the voter log. And if going to the grocery store is any measure, a lot of people are going to get to the front of the line and take 5 minutes or more to find their ID.

Do you have any proof that the ID voting process is going to be faster as you claim? No. You don't. That is just more invented stuff to justify your positions.


And IDs are very cheap to make and last for many years so the cost, of the few million extra IDs that might have to be made is virtually nothing and is not likely to require hiring any additional govt employees since every state already has multiple DMV offices that already handle the creation of these IDs for many more millions of people every year.
Yeah, pretty much.

Given your response here and our fiscal history with previous Republican leadership, one can easily understand why Republicans are horrible with fiscal policy. They don't understand the concept of cost.



Which of course has nothing at all to do with anything, unless you are saying we should never rely on the today's Supreme Court opinions because of decisions an entirely different court made 140 years ago. And of course it's not just the Supreme Court that concurred. It's the Indiana Supreme Court as well as Federal Courts.

I think you are missing the point. I am not an "strict constructionalist". That is your party's gig. By the way, Dred Scott has not been over turned either.

Must I remind you that the "strict constructionalist" says if it ain't in the Constitution, it should not be the law. And if the founding fathers didn't envision it, it should not be the law. And it ain't in the Constitution that one needs a photo ID card to exercise the right to vote.

Let me remind you for the umpteenth time this is about the hypocrisies of you position - how it violates a number your positions.

Bottom line is you are more about party power than individual rights; smaller government; and fiscal responsibility.

Oh hogwash - more Republican magical thinking at best. Today you walk in. Tell them your name. They look up your name and you sign the voter log. Under you scheme You walk in. Find your ID card. They validate your ID card. They look up your name. You sign the voter log. And if going to the grocery store is any measure, a lot of people are going to get to the front of the line and take 5 minutes or more to find their ID.

Do you have any proof that the ID voting process is going to be faster as you claim? No. You don't. That is just more invented stuff to justify your positions.

Nope, the State ID is tied to the voter roles by the ID number, no need for comparison of signatures, which is the time consuming part of this.


Given your response here and our fiscal history with previous Republican leadership, one can easily understand why Republicans are horrible with fiscal policy. They don't understand the concept of cost.

Actually we do understand fiscal policy quite well and it's clear to everyone but you that the cost of this is marginal and offset by the improvement in the process and the high value in insuring a fair vote.



I think you are missing the point. I am not an "strict constructionalist". That is your party's gig. By the way, Dred Scott has not been over turned either.

Doesn't need to be. It became moot and the SCOTUS won't listen to cases once they become moot.


Must I remind you that the "strict constructionalist" says if it ain't in the Constitution, it should not be the law. And if the founding fathers didn't envision it, it should not be the law. And it ain't in the Constitution that one needs a photo ID card to exercise the right to vote.

Nope that is an improper understanding of the concept.

Since the Constitution in fact says it is up to the State Legislature to determine the MANNER of voting, the most strict reading of the Constitution does in fact allow the states to implement Voter IDs, since it gives control of the manner to them.

Joe, bottom line is the courts agree that if the States want it, that Voter ID is legal.

Nope, the State ID is tied to the voter roles by the ID number, no need for comparison of signatures, which is the time consuming part of this.

No the time consuming part of this is going to be going to the polls and waiting for individuals to produce their ID and matching validating the ID in addition to looking up and validating voter registrations.

That does not happen with out an investment in time and infrastructure. So the bottom line here is that at a time when government budgets are stretched, you want to add more spending further expanding government deficits and debt.



Actually we do understand fiscal policy quite well and it's clear to everyone but you that the cost of this is marginal and offset by the improvement in the process and the high value in insuring a fair vote.

Yeah we can all see how well you Republicans/Tea Partiers understand fiscal policy. You spend a trillion dollars on Iraq and put it on the national credit card. You spend another trillion dollars on Afghanistan and put it on the national credit card. You open up federal coffers to raids by special interest groups (e.g. Medicare Part D) and you put that on the national credit card - another trillion dollars on the national credit card. And then when the bills come due, you threaten to run the nation into default. Oh yeah, you guys certainly understand fiscal policy. :)

And then you think you can increase government mandates and it won't cost a dime, just like Afghanistan, Iraq and Medicare Part D.



Doesn't need to be. It became moot and the SCOTUS won't listen to cases once they become moot.

Nope that is an improper understanding of the concept.

Since the Constitution in fact says it is up to the State Legislature to determine the MANNER of voting, the most strict reading of the Constitution does in fact allow the states to implement Voter IDs, since it gives control of the manner to them.

Joe, bottom line is the courts agree that if the States want it, that Voter ID is legal.

No, this is you creating a either creating a straw man or unable to understand the difference between what may be legal and a contradiction in your positions.

The issue here as it has been for the last several dozen posts and for which you have steadfastly avoided answering is the hypocrisy of you and your fellow Republicans on this issue.

You are all against state mandates, big government, government spending, an strict constructionalist except when it limits your political power.

Yawn

The bottom line is the courts agree that if the States want it, requiring Voter ID is legal.

Once again, back to ignore.

Yawn

The bottom line is the courts agree that if the States want it, requiring Voter ID is legal.

Once again, back to ignore.

LOL, Arthur yet another in a long series of lies. :) You have been saying you were going to ignore me for a very long time, because you cannot stand the heat of open honest discourse. Sticking your head in the sand may make you feel better. But it will not make your fallacies any less false.

Here is the bottom line, in the dozens of posts on this topic you have yet to address the issue of your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of your party on this issue.

You guys claim to be for small government; limited government involvement in individual lives; against government mandates; limited government spending; fiscal responsibility and strict interpretation of the Constitution. But in reality, that all goes down the toilet when the party finds them politically inconvenient (e.g. Voter ID).

86-Year-Old Ohio Veteran Can’t Vote After Government-Issued ID Is Rejected At Poll (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/06/439324/86-year-old-ohio-veteran-cant-vote-after-government-issued-id-is-rejected-at-poll/)

93-Year-Old Tennessee Woman Who Cleaned State Capitol For 30 Years Denied Voter ID (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/26/395287/93-year-old-tennessee-woman-who-cleaned-state-capitol-for-30-years-denied-voter-id/)

Nope.

Any voter who is denied gets a PROVISIONAL ballot and then simply has to get the proper ID.

The problem here is not with the Voter ID law but the dumb Veteran's Affairs office for issuing an ID without an address on it.

In the second case, she wasn't denied anything.
She HEARD that she would be denied and so went to the TV station.

But in point of fact, had she taken that ID to the polls it would have been valid.

The other assertions, like the one reguiring about a POLL TAX, are just as absurd.

THIS SHIT IS JUST BEING MADE UP.

I don't understand all the passion. It seems clear to me that requiring a voter I.D. could prevent certain non-voters from voting, though this is not a significant problem in terms of the provable numbers involved. OTOH, it also has the effect of requiring perfectly legal voters to obtain an ID, which not everyone has. As many people are not especially conscientious about such things, some number of people, likely small, will not be able to vote. The latter is likely to disproportionately affect minorities to some degree.

Neither enacting nor repealing such laws will have any noticeable effect on the fairness of the process overall.

I have little doubt that the GOP loves these laws for the slight edge they are projected to give Republicans. I had no doubt the Dems loved the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 for the slight edge it was projected to give Democrats.

It seems like people are only outraged when the law is used to affect voting mechanics if the change is adverse to their side.

Nope.

Any voter who is denied gets a PROVISIONAL ballot and then simply has to get the proper ID.

The problem here is not with the Voter ID law but the dumb Veteran's Affairs office for issuing an ID without an address on it.

In the second case, she wasn't denied anything.
She HEARD that she would be denied and so went to the TV station.

But in point of fact, had she taken that ID to the polls it would have been valid.

The other assertions, like the one reguiring about a POLL TAX, are just as absurd.

THIS SHIT IS JUST BEING MADE UP.

Actually, the Veterans Office stopped putting addresses on their cards because it's accepted in every state, therefore you don't have to prove you are a resident of any particular state.

How many people who don't get media attention are going to follow up on the absentee ballot? Not as many as those who could vote that same day, and that's that outcome the GOP, specifically all the con governors, decided to pursue.

And guess what, Republican governors are shutting down DMVs (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9OKSP800.htm) in Democratic majority districts.

and thats just before they go try and vate on voting days they make sure their aren't enough machines for the black areas

Any bonehead candidate like Romney, who spends seven million dollars to lose a million dollar race, is too incompetent to be a President, nor have the credentials to be allowed to vote for one.

and thats just before they go try and vate on voting days they make sure their aren't enough machines for the black areas


there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”


http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2008/0102-voter-id.php

We need Photo IDs in this country to drive, and 88% of those old enough to drive already have one.
We need a Passport if we leave the country, even to Canada and Mexico, so again a huge percent of people have one.
We need a Photo ID to take a plane flight in the US.
We need a Photo ID to buy liquor and often cigarettes.
We need a Photo ID to open a Bank Account or access our Medical records.
So considering all the normal everyday need for an ID, to then say it's a big burden to also require one to vote is frankly silly particularly since the SCOTUS has already ruled: "There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes."

And without a valid ID you can't determine eligibility.

And what happens when you become to feeble to drive? They take your freaking license away! I also doubt that an elderly person has to carry ID to buy liquor or cigs! Are you really going to question whether some geezer is over 21?

And what happens when you become to feeble to drive? They take your freaking license away! I also doubt that an elderly person has to carry ID to buy liquor or cigs! Are you really going to question whether some geezer is over 21?

You get the same ID from the DMV, it just states that you can't drive.
States have been doing this for years for the identification needs of the ~10% or so of adults who don't drive.

And it's true, I can't buy Alcohol without a picture ID and yet my kids are older than 21.

This is typical of many states. Everyone get's ID'd, no exceptions.

Nor can you board an airplane.
Nor can you leave the county.
Nor can you access your medical records.
Nor can you open up a Bank Account.

If it is required for these other rather mundane activities it simply can't be seen as a unreasonable requirement for proof of eligibility to vote.

Nor is accepting a Veterans Card unreasonable.

Sure, and it will be legal to use once they put an actual Address on it.

Even so he was offered a provisional ballot, and rejected that option.

You just can't satisfy everyone.

Which is the goal, to prevent as many people as possible from voting. There is no problem that is being remedied by this deliberate approach to make voting more difficult, especially for the poor and elderly, traditional supporters of the Democrats.

Nope, as previously cited:


there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”

The fact is all of these laws were passed with plenty of lead time for people to get their IDs, and the IDs are obviously easy to get.

Which is why NO ONE bitches because they have to show the exact same ID to take a friggin vacation, but suddenly asking people to prove they are an eligible voter is such a hardship.

Get real.

It's not.

That only means, if true, they failed to get the outcome they desired. The very elderly and the poor do not regularly take expensive vacations that involve air travel.

Which is why NO ONE bitches because they have to show the exact same ID to take a friggin vacation, but suddenly asking people to prove they are an eligible voter is such a hardship.

Assuming that everyone flies to vacations is pretty elitist. I wouldn't want the poorer/older/more infirm people to be excluded from voting just because someone can't imagine they exist.

Assuming that everyone flies to vacations is pretty elitist. I wouldn't want the poorer/older/more infirm people to be excluded from voting just because someone can't imagine they exist.

That isn't my assumption, but it does show that we have no issue with mandating the exact same ID requirements to board a damn plane.

Or to return from Canada or Mexico or Europe....

Seems like the ID requirement to vote should be at least the same as getting on a plane, buying alcohol, opening a bank account, driving a car etc etc.

The arguments about how much of a hardship it is, is total BS.

I'm not going to be x-rayed or patted down for weapons when I vote either, so your analogy is flawed.

No it's not.
You need the ID to even get to the security point.

And you need the exact same ID for many other ROUTINE daily activities, so no claiming it's a hardship is just BS.

I'm curious though.

What part of this don't you understand?

The SCOTUS stated There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830#ixzz1oYpUFUqV


This isn't about ensuring eligible citizens get to vote, it's about reducing the number of people in total that can vote.

No it's not.
You need the ID to even get to the security point.

And you need the exact same ID for many other ROUTINE daily activities, so no claiming it's a hardship is just BS.

I'm curious though.

What part of this don't you understand?

The SCOTUS stated There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a State’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes.

no you don't. I've flown without valid id.

You had to prove who you were, and until you do, you don't fly.


Not having an ID, does not necessarily mean a passenger won’t be allowed to fly. If passengers are willing to provide additional information, we have other means of substantiating someone’s identity, like using publicly available databases.

Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening. Passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA may not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or onto an airplane. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/acceptable_documents.shtm

But Voting precincts don't have the resources of the TSA.
So if you don't have a valid picture ID, you are given a provisional ballot and allowed to vote.
Then you can go get a valid ID so your vote can be added to the official count.

It's a very rational compromise.

But as this thread shows, those opposed to verifing people's identity are not interested in any form of rational compromise.

These latest gauntlets could be addressed with an easily-implemented and widely-advertised process, without so much of the time-wasting grief, evil impressions of vote-denying undertones, and dehumanizing the poor, elderly, and disabled.

What we are left with is mostly myth, much like is the reality similarly that the miniscule stats reveal in the abortion numbers--much ado about nothing.
What we are left with is dirty political tricks, similarly like redistricting is.

When clowns rule, the ticket booth gets robbed, and the tent falls on the innocent audience.

--keith1