I Strongly Dislike our governor (Washington, Bridgeville: quality of life, tax, live)

[Mr. Mon]

Originally Posted by Debbie1125

Also you need an ID when applying for welfare and other entitlements. I bet those folks have no problems with it then.

This keeps getting brought up again and again. The assumption that people without IDs are all on welfare says volumes about our social disdain for the poor.

You'd be shocked at how many people who simply exist outside of the normal financial and social system. Many don't drive, don't use banks, don't use credit or any number of normal activities that most people participate in.

Frankly, unless there is first a law requiring all residents have a photo ID, there is no practical way to require showing one exclusively for the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Debbie1125

You are required in Pennsylvania to have either a driver's license or state photo ID.

I am not aware of any PA law requiring residents to have identification.

We don't live in a police state where we need to provide identification on demand.

In 2008, PA voted against the federal Real ID law. And PA is still fighting that federal mandate.

[GarlicBreath]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mon

You'd be shocked at how many people who simply exist outside of the normal financial and social system. Many don't drive, don't use banks, don't use credit or any number of normal activities that most people participate in.

In other words people who don't contribute to society

[JoeP]

If you are "required" to have a state ID then the state must provide one. Period.

Making people buy one as a solution to a problem that does not exist is ridiculous and essentially is a poll tax.

This has absolutely nothing to do with welfare. This has everything to do with a bold attempt to engage in Southern politics to disenfranchise voters that the state GOP doesn't want voting.

[Stijl Council]

Originally Posted by GarlicBreath

In other words people who don't contribute to society

Or people who have "contributed to society" in the ways you're talking about for forty or fifty years and are now retired.

[ML North]

Originally Posted by Debbie1125

I can honestly say that I don't know what all of the uproar is about with having ID. You are required in Pennsylvania to have either a driver's license or state photo ID. The latter costs a mere $13 every 4 years. I get a notice well in advance of when my state ID is expiring.

That's not true. You can be legally obligated to identify yourself under certain circumstances, but you are not required to possess a state issued ID card.

Originally Posted by Debbie1125

Photo ID is required for many things, not just voting. I've had to show my ID to get a library card and sometimes when using a credit card plus other things.

Photo ID is required by law for almost nothing. A common but misleading and erroneous argument is that photo identification is required for many everyday things such a purchasing alcohol or tobacco or securing certain privileges such as a library card. This is not correct. Businesses and institutions generally have policies requiring customers to show identification, but those policies are not mandated by law. Anyone can buy beer without an identification, however distributors can get in big trouble for selling alcohol for someone under the age of 21. So as a matter of policy, distributors require customers to provide photo identification if they appear to be below a certain age.

That example is not analogous to the new photo ID law, in which it is being mandated not that polling officials confirm the identity of voters, but rather that polling officials see a narrowly-defined identification card.

[Clint.]

Originally Posted by Billy53

This is the problem. It's not if a person can or can't get a ID easily. The problem is this country is split right down the middle and there is no give or negotiation. Nobody can live with anything that is not 100% within their ideology. I'm a 21 year veteran who is beginning to wonder why I even bothered. I no longer like democrats, republicans, conservative, liberals or Independents. Just shut up about being the best or worst until a politician works for everyone within reason everyone is bad!!!!!!!!!! I use to be confused on who to vote for now I just don't care!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You said it my man. I can't easily remember the last time I've met someone who regularly qualified their sentiments or opinion, whether in politics or just a coworker or someone offering their evaluation of an idea, etc. I've love to hear "maybe" "I think" "perhaps" "sometimes" "it might", etc. be used more often than they are, but it seems that people tend to interpret uncertaintly as weakness.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with arriving at a well-reasoned conclusion and then going ahead with it, but I'm afraid Davy Crockett's maxim may be a little too reckless to be practiced as a rule of thumb in a civilized society, especially when people have such flimsy standards when it comes to evaluating their "rightness".

[Clint.]

A times like this, I just try to ask myself: What would the Founding Fathers do?

Let's work out a compromise of some sort...perhaps, let those without valid ID cast a vote, but let it count for only 3/5 of a vote.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Turzai's boneheaded bumbling aside . . .

Kinsley gaffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth - some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."

. . . every news article on someone actually being effected by these laws was some old guy being turned away while trying to vote for mitt Romney in the primary.

I agree it isn't really known yet what, if any, net impact this will have on the general election. Personally, I think the mere fact that people who want to vote and who are otherwise eligible to vote will be denied that right for no legitimate purpose is enough to condemn the law, even if it proves ineffectual at changing the outcome of the election.

But in that context, Turzai's "bumbling" admission of the truth is still important, because it completes the case that there is in fact no legitimate purpose behind this law.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by UKyank

Should you have to register to vote?

Personally, I would say no, not in a voluntary voting system (in a compulsory voting system, you likely need some sort of register). I believe North Dakota has no registration system, in fact.

Even assuming there is some purpose being served by voter registration in a voluntary system, it should be as easy as possible to register, including same-day registration and online registration.