How does a photo ID requirement suppress voters? (felony, Austin, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, SC voters have shown overwhelming support, both Dems and GOP, for this Voter ID law. It wasn't until national interests got involved that SC made the 'news' so to speak.
The states are a testbed for our laws. What one state does, can impact the laws of other states, and the federal government. Voter ID laws have been in and out of the news for the past couple years.
Quote:
I think the reason the law was both desired and welcomed in a bipartisan fashion here is the issues we have seen time and again with the voting process here. This, at least on its face, seems to solve many of those issues. Without getting too into detail, it has a lot to do with the way the local election commission offices are ran and managed and how they interface with the DMV for vital records stats (e.g alive/dead/legal residence).
You'd have to go into the detail to support your arguments. But keep in mind, a dead guy registered to vote isn't the same as a dead guy actually voting. I'm curious how you see voter-ID laws as solving fraudulent in-person voting--which, as I've stated and previously sourced, hasn't been shown to be a problem.
Quote:
Some things that made this a bipartisan effort here was that proper and easy to reach transportation would be available for those needing a ride to the DMV. In addition, there is a $5 SC ID (not DL) but in order to ensure satisfaction with the law, SC made sure people could get that ID for free if needed.
For me, personally, it's a common sense thing.
Voter ID laws are great if you take them at face value, but they represent a much more complicated issue. When you register to vote, you have to prove citizenship in the first place. VoterID laws are designed to stop in-person voters from voting as someone they aren't.
Nobody really does that. That's what all those studies have shown. Someone linked the Pew Research forum as evidence of voter fraud--but it didn't stand up to scrutiny, because all it did was list a bunch of dead voters. That's great, but that doesn't actually mean dead people are voting. Nobody has really provided evidence that this kind of fraudulent voting--that non-eligible voters are indeed voting at the polls, are not just "possibly capable of voting."
It's always why I take issue with anything that's "common sense," because common sense is commonly wrong. Our intuition has been proven wrong numerous times, and our psychology incredibly more complex than most people understand.
Quote:
I was conversing back and forth with someone from Hawaii and they have a very similar law. The major difference is they have a caveat that if you absolutely cannot get an ID, then there are alternatives to an ID. Wonder if SC enacted the exact same law as Hawaii, would we still be blocked by DOJ? I will say, with Hawaii being so liberal, I do not think this is just a conservative versus liberal issue. From the sounds of it, it's much, much harder to register to vote in Hawaii than here, for example. Guess that would constitute a poll tax based on your rather broad definition.
Registering to vote isn't the difficulty, it's the process of voting. The state has the right to control who and how people vote--but constitutionally, there can't be a poll tax--a tax to cast your ballot. The process to legally register to vote is different than the process to vote itself.
Quote:
This has been framed as a conservative issue by certain people but it's not.
Are you disagree that conservatives overwhelmingly support VoterID laws? Of all the people arguing to and fro on this thread, I've seen one proclaimed liberal say it's a great idea. How many conservatives on here have been against it?
Quote:
We're not the only state doing this and some are quite liberal. The DOJ went after the Southern states because they both wanted to make this a campaign issue and the VRA allows them to do so. This is why you do not see the DOJ having anything to do with the Hawaii voting laws.
Hawaii's law isn't that strict. It requires any photo ID, and if you don't have it, you recite some basic information stating who you are. A lot of these VoterID laws want state-issued IDs, Driver's licenses essentially. No ID? Some states make you sign an affidavit, others make you vote a phony ballot that only counts if you end up providing ID at a later time.
The states have handled this in a number of ways. Hawaii is hardly "strict."
The states are a testbed for our laws. What one state does, can impact the laws of other states, and the federal government. Voter ID laws have been in and out of the news for the past couple years.
You'd have to go into the detail to support your arguments. But keep in mind, a dead guy registered to vote isn't the same as a dead guy actually voting. I'm curious how you see voter-ID laws as solving fraudulent in-person voting--which, as I've stated and previously sourced, hasn't been shown to be a problem.
Voter ID laws are great if you take them at face value, but they represent a much more complicated issue. When you register to vote, you have to prove citizenship in the first place. VoterID laws are designed to stop in-person voters from voting as someone they aren't.
Nobody really does that. That's what all those studies have shown. Someone linked the Pew Research forum as evidence of voter fraud--but it didn't stand up to scrutiny, because all it did was list a bunch of dead voters. That's great, but that doesn't actually mean dead people are voting. Nobody has really provided evidence that this kind of fraudulent voting--that non-eligible voters are indeed voting at the polls, are not just "possibly capable of voting."
It's always why I take issue with anything that's "common sense," because common sense is commonly wrong. Our intuition has been proven wrong numerous times, and our psychology incredibly more complex than most people understand.
Registering to vote isn't the difficulty, it's the process of voting. The state has the right to control who and how people vote--but constitutionally, there can't be a poll tax--a tax to cast your ballot. The process to legally register to vote is different than the process to vote itself.
Are you disagree that conservatives overwhelmingly support VoterID laws? Of all the people arguing to and fro on this thread, I've seen one proclaimed liberal say it's a great idea. How many conservatives on here have been against it?
Hawaii's law isn't that strict. It requires any photo ID, and if you don't have it, you recite some basic information stating who you are. A lot of these VoterID laws want state-issued IDs, Driver's licenses essentially. No ID? Some states make you sign an affidavit, others make you vote a phony ballot that only counts if you end up providing ID at a later time.
The states have handled this in a number of ways. Hawaii is hardly "strict."
A lot of details and its getting late so I'll keep this short. I can only speak with any genuine knowledge about SC's specific law because that is the one that I am most familiar with. The others I have knowledge about but not the details and quite frankly, the devil's in the details. SC, like many other states, is not requiring only a SC ID. They will take a passport, military ID, or SC ID. The SC ID can be provided free of charge if the voter does not possess any of the accepted forms of ID.
I will leave you with just a quick impression of how this worked in real life. The DOJ blocked this law right before our last election so the polling stations were still set up for taking the IDs but the poll workers still had to have the old rolls as well. With my ID, they simply scanned the bar code and that was it. This compares to my previous experiences where they had to cross check two different lists and quite frankly, it was a pain. There was always a lot of provisional ballots with the old style. I asked the poll workers if they had noticed a difference with the new s/w. Their response was pretty positive. They had less issues, less provisional ballots, and seemed pretty pleased with it. Granted, that's one very small anecdote, but from my own point of view, it seems to be a more efficient system with the added bonus of ensuring no voter fraud could happen easily.
Perhaps there is an answer here where a trial period or something could be set up but I do not see why we should simply throw out the entire law. It's just nonsensical to say that an ID is such a huge impediment that it would constitute a poll tax when there are so many obvious benefits and the negatives seem to have been completely discredited or handled via the laws put in place.
Now, I'm off to bed. It's late here on the east coast. Have a good evening.
In North Carolina to get a photo ID one has to prove they are a citizen and resident of our state. We have to present our Social Security Number to get a drivers' license so I am sure the same is necessary to get a photo ID. I would think that in order to vote that one should present their voter registration card, but they never ask me for it.
Maybe they are concerned that to present a voter ID card or a photo ID card would cut down on dead people voting or stop the practice of voting in more than one state on election day. I have been told that a lot of people fly from the North to Florida on election day. In North Carolina we make it even easier to vote in more than one place by allowing early voting.
I say one vote per each live person and let that person furnish proof that they are who they say they are and are a citizen of the state and country where they vote.
It's real simple. Fraudulent voting is extremely rare. Voter suppression, in the form of increased ID requirements, would effect Democratic voters more so than GOP voters. This is the real reason why the laws were being sponsored by sleazy GOP operators. This is from the Judges's ruling in Wisconsin striking down their more stringent voter ID requirements.
Affidavits have been submitted by amici curiae Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Dane County demonstrating the very real disenfranchising effects of Act 23’s photo ID requirements. They show that many constitutionally qualified electors from all walks of life will be blocked from voting at the polls by Act 23, involuntarily and occasionally through no fault of their own. Governor Walker and the GAB correctly observe that this court may not rely on this evidence in deciding plaintiffs’ purely facial challenge to Act 23’s constitutionality. Indeed, it is not necessary to consider the human cost of photo ID requirements in order to expose their constitutional deficiencies. As seen above, they are unconstitutional on their face.
Just as an example. Wisconsin may have had ZERO cases of even alleged voter fraud.... But citizens could provide real concrete examples of where eligible voters where denied the right to vote because of ID requirements. Case in point, a blind, 90 year old women is totally unaware of the new guidelines and is turned away at the polling station because she doesn't have proper ID.
Section 1.
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 any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Section 1.
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 any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,143,759 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
A state id is not a poll tax, next...
Exactly... a tax is a burden on the citizens to support government. If getting an ID has a financial cost it would be in the "fee" category. The only fees which would be realized would be the cost if any, for a certified copy of a birth certificate. And most people have these anyway. Heck, I had to have a copy of my son's just so he could play Little League to prove his age. You have to have one to get a passport, but nowhere do I think that getting a passport has a "tax" because of it.
The fee of actually getting the ID from the DMV or whoever, could be on a sliding scale.. I see no problem of giving those who can't afford one a card. In the long run it would be beneficial to all of us Citizens.
The only people who should be afraid of this are the people who are not legal citizens and who have no right to vote. We should not make it so people can't register and vote; but we should make it impossible for those who can't legally do so. I really don't get what is so hard to understand about this? It is suspicious in its very nature that the left is fighting this so hard. As long as every LEGAL citizen can vote, and only vote once, in their correct district and state, what are they afraid of?
"Would only affect a few people, not really a tax", etc, etc, etc. All these legal eagles! It is a violation of the 24th amendment. Go read your daily hour of the constitution you supporters of this nonsense!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
