Picture ID Reguired to Vote in NH.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by BF66389

What she is saying is that this CAN be a hurdle for the elderly; and making it a hurdle for a law abiding citizen is a problem. When "going out" is a big deal requiring a good bit of effort- should that time be spent getting an ID to do something the person is legally allowed to do anyway or perhaps not having that hurdle in place and visiting the Grandkids or park is a better option?

Voting IS A RIGHT for legal citizens of the United States, not a privilege like driving...what next a photo ID required to just own a gun like in MA? (yes I know it's required to purchase one from a dealer...but that's not my point).

I recognize that I'm taking a fairly conservative position in this thread. A few days ago I was taking a pretty liberal position arguing for better wages and working conditions for the agricultural workers in CA. I'm a moderate and don't have a difficult time finding the sensible middle ground.

As a moderate, I believe the concerns of the left and right can be addressed by merely:

1. Ensure there is adequate notice before any such provisions take effect.
2. Provide the official ID at no cost.
3. Provide assistance to the elderly or others who are unable to go out and get an ID.

If you do all three of the above, there can be no rational justification to oppose such a measure. Nobody would face the prospect of not being able to vote because they can't afford an ID, can't leave the house, or didn't have enough warning. I don't believe the NH law incorporates all three, BUT it still allows a voter to complete an affidavit. So again, nobody would be denied a right to vote.

Lost in an earlier post I said that I don't trust politicians. Nor do I trust ideologues. There are no doubt people hoping these laws will keep some people more likely to vote blue at home on election day. There are also certain to be people who know they are getting votes they otherwise wouldn't be getting and are just fine with that.

I could make a case that the mere act of registering to vote takes as much effort as getting an ID. In fact, if you take your argument that "Voting IS A RIGHT for legal citizens of the United States, not a privilege like driving", why do you even have to register? Everyone accepts that you must register to vote. You can't vote without registering, yet everyone accepts that. What is the purpose and intent of voter registration? Isn't the voter ID act right in line with the spirit and intent of voter registration? Heck, this was pulled from the City of Manchester's website. It's not like you currently don't have any administrative requirements to cast a vote.

New Hampshire residents who will be 18 years of age or older on Election Day, and a United States Citizen may register with their Town or City Clerk. According to State Law you may register to vote up to ten (10) days prior to an election unless that day falls on a holiday then it would be up to seven (7) days prior to the election. You may also register to vote on Election Day at your polling location. THE POLLS ARE OPEN FROM 6:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. UNLESS POSTED OTHERWISE. *Please note that the polling location for the Special State Primary in District 10/Ward 3 will be open between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on December 20, 2011.

The Office of the City Clerk is opened for voter registration Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday evenings until 8:00 p.m., excluding holidays. All applications must be approved by the Board of Registrars before being added to the checklist.

In order to register to vote in the City of Manchester you must meet the following requirements:

Valid New Hampshire Driver's License with current Manchester address on the front

ALL OTHERS

Proof of Identification
Valid Driver's License, Non-Driver's ID, Current Passport, Military ID, School ID or other valid picture ID.

Proof of Domicile
Valid NH Vehicle Registration, Utility Bill (with applicant's name on it, i.e. Telephone, Gas, Electric), medical bills, pay stubs showing your Manchester address or other monthly bills, or postmarked mail within the last 30 days.

If the individual does not have any of this information they will be required to sign a Domicile Affidavit, under the penalties of voting fraud set forth by State Law.

If you are a naturalized citizen you will also need to provide proof of your citizenship or you will be asked to complete a Citizenship Affidavit, under the penalties of voting fraud set forth by State Law.

So if you accept the fact that you currently can't just vote without performing some administrative requirements, and you take the appropriate measures to ensure that nobody is denied an ID, I don't see where the objection can be.

[Mrtwigg]

Originally Posted by unit731

A military person stationed in Afghanistan, Germany, Korea or on board ship.
Or for that matter any business person working overseas.
How does that person obtain an absentee ballot?

Find the nearest Dem-O-Rat, they will gladly fill one out in your name.

Except they probably already have.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by unit731

A military person stationed in Afghanistan, Germany, Korea or on board ship.
Or for that matter any business person working overseas.
How does that person obtain an absentee ballot?

The military is well taken care of and well organized with regard to voting. Well, I can only speak to the Army but the mandate stems form the FVAP, so it must be DoD wide. Every unit in the Army (company and above) has a voting assistance officer. Before any major election they educate and assist anyone and everyone who wants to vote. You can get info and help from them any time. They have info for all 50 states. They'll even help you with the necessary forms. The only soldiers who don't vote are the ones who don't care if they vote. They have a well-oiled machine for allowing you to vote. It doesn't matter if you are in a foxhole in a combat zone or on a ship in the Pacific. Equally impressive is that it is not politicized. You are not provided with biased materials or nudged to vote in any particular direction. It's all a matter-of-fact process.

[Valerie C]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

The military is well taken care of and well organized with regard to voting. <snip> They have a well-oiled machine for allowing you to vote. It doesn't matter if you are in a foxhole in a combat zone or on a ship in the Pacific. Equally impressive is that it is not politicized. You are not provided with biased materials or nudged to vote in any particular direction. It's all a matter-of-fact process.

Until the votes get back to the US Mainland and the well-oiled machine starts breaking down. It was pretty well-known that in the 2008 presidential election, a quarter of overseas absentee (mainly military) votes didn't get counted. Documentation:

One Marine's View: Senate Report: One Forth Of Military Votes Uncounted in 2008 (98,000 servicemembers screwed out of their vote)

As so not to be accused of posting from a 'biased' site, here is the same story from HuffPost and MSNBC, as reported on AP:

One-Fourth Of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted: Report

Report: One-fourth of overseas votes uncounted - politics - More politics - msnbc.com

[buck naked]

Absentee ballots HAVE to be sent in early in order to be counted. The biggest problem with the military ballots from overseas is they arrived after election day.


Absentee Ballots: Must be received by the time polls close on election day (by mail); received by the day before the election (in person). Election officials decide whether or not to count the absentee ballots.

There are many reasons for disqualified ballots - it arrived after voting closed, it's not filled out correctly, there is a question re: legit residency. Sometimes the outer envelope is not sealed - vote not counted. If the envelope has been opened and resealed - vote not counted. If the outer envelope is not signed - vote not counted. Unfortunately, some people check the straight Republican or Democratic ticket AND check their choices for election....these ballots are also disqualified as double votes.

Generally, absentee ballots are counted first because they are already in when the polls close.

as always - the process varies by state.

[steveusaf]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

The military is well taken care of and well organized with regard to voting. Well, I can only speak to the Army but the mandate stems form the FVAP, so it must be DoD wide. Every unit in the Army (company and above) has a voting assistance officer. Before any major election they educate and assist anyone and everyone who wants to vote. You can get info and help from them any time. They have info for all 50 states. They'll even help you with the necessary forms. The only soldiers who don't vote are the ones who don't care if they vote. They have a well-oiled machine for allowing you to vote. It doesn't matter if you are in a foxhole in a combat zone or on a ship in the Pacific. Equally impressive is that it is not politicized. You are not provided with biased materials or nudged to vote in any particular direction. It's all a matter-of-fact process.

I can also go through a voting assistance officer, but last time I just called the city clerk and requested a ballot. There was something I had to fill out that proved I was a resident. I have vehicles registered there and a legal address. As noted before, this cannot be done at the last minute.

[snowshoes]

this is absolutely discriminatory especially against seniors.
Many no longer drive and find it difficult to get around to locate other sources.
Why should any who are denied basic rights of citizenship be forced to pay taxes? Without basic rights seems there is little reason to support a government! That is not democracy at all

[flyonpa]

Originally Posted by snowshoes

this is absolutely discriminatory especially against seniors.
Many no longer drive and find it difficult to get around to locate other sources.
Why should any who are denied basic rights of citizenship be forced to pay taxes? Without basic rights seems there is little reason to support a government! That is not democracy at all

Section IV of the bill.

IV.(a) The secretary of state shall cause a letter of identity verification to be mailed by first class mail to each voter who executed a [qualified] challenged voter affidavit in accordance with paragraph I. The letter shall be mailed within 60 days after the election, except that if the election is a state primary election, the letter shall be mailed 60 days after the general election, and if the election is a regularly scheduled municipal election, the letter shall be mailed by the July 1 or January 1 next following the election. The secretary of state shall mark the envelope with instructions to the United States Post Office not to forward the letter and to provide address correction information. The letter shall notify the person that a person who did not present valid photo identification voted using his or her name and address and instruct the person to return the letter within 90 days with a written confirmation that the person voted or to contact the attorney general immediately if he or she did not vote. The letter shall also inform the person of the procedure for obtaining a free nondriver’s picture identification card for voting purposes.


The State will prove a FREEE non/driver Photo ID.

[GotBackHome]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

To each his own. Over my dead body will I allow my mother to stare at walls and leave a boring and dull existence for her final years on earth. That's not laughable, that's a fact. You thought you were telling a tear jerking story about an old man being denied a right to vote. What I heard instead was a tear jerking story of someone who is borderline neglected. Or perhaps you were just pulling a page from the liberal book of tear jerking and exaggerated a tad? I hope that is the case because I was actually thinking about this off and on today. For various reasons the proper care and treatment of the elderly means a lot to me. A huge pet peeve of mine. Really, tell me you were stretching things just a bit to demonstrate your point. You have to admit that an elderly man leaving the house only to visit the Dr and vote every 2 years does not paint a good picture.

this is not a thread about how my father feels about his life. No, I"m not exaggerating -but he doesn't want any more of a life than he has (actually, he'd rather he didn't have one at all - just ask him! too many body parts broken down, 2 sons gone before him...). He's not neglected at all, actually he's pretty darn demanding and it places a huge toll on my mom. thankfully now she finally has someone who comes in to do light housework during the week, and I think someone my dad will actually allow to help bathe him. And why should he stare at walls? he has windows, he has a tv, he has newspapers, there's lots of birds at eh bird feeders to watch, and the cat for company as well as my sister's dog & my nephew's 2 dogs that they babysit during the days (nephew is in the hospital in a coma for a couple of months now and his wife - when not working is down at the rehab center with him. he's doing very well, all things considered). and frankly, he doesn't WANT to go out!!! it's no picnic for him either.

In any case, as I just visited them yesterday, I asked my mother about this subject. I couldn't get into it deeply as we had requested a 'no politics comments from my BiL who was with us, so I had to apply it to me also). I can tell you that my mom had quite a note of disgust in her voice about it - just don't know what she didn't like about it. She does go out any time she needs/wants to. She's in much better health than my dad and doesn't smell bad. In any case.. he had gotten a non-drivers ID a few years ago when it was much easier to get him into a car, and he doesn't go out to vote anyway- he votes by absentee ballot. My mother, who has a drivers license, does go out to vote.

[unit731]

"Voter photo identification (SB 289): Gov. Lynch's veto was also overridden on a bill requiring voters to present photo identification before casting a ballot. At first glance, this new law seems perfectly reasonable as it appears intended to prevent voter fraud. At second glance, it is less reasonable because, despite some people's overactive imaginations, voter fraud due to impersonation is rare. At third glance, the bill starts to become suspicious because it discriminates against groups which are less likely to have the required photo identification; that is, minorities, the elderly, the disabled and students. At fourth glance, SB 289 is positively suspicious because these groups tend to vote Democratic, so photo IDs are a good way to suppress Democratic votes. At fifth glance, the photo ID is definitely suspect when it is realized that Republicans in states across America are promoting similar photo ID laws."

LINK