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.
For anyone that does not know out there, if you are in a state that does not require a drivers license or State issued ID to vote, some of the states are passing this law now, you may need it in upcoming elections
You must go to the DMV in order have one of these, call beforehand to see if your original birth certificate is acceptable and any other ID you may need, if your original birth certificate is not acceptable, ask them where to go to get a new birth certificate, you will need these in order to go to the DMV to receive this ID card, you may also need something with your home address on it.
This is what it looks like depending on what state you live in. Notice it reads the state of Wyoming identification card.
In my state you can apply for a voter registration card by answering a few questions including your SS#.
I'm all for anything that would deter fraud at the polls. ID Cards, passports, property tax bills, fingerprint scanners, retinal scanners, whatever is necessary to validate identity and prove citizenship.
This is not voter suppression of any kind - it's simply the protection of one of the most important rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
We cannot allow the free election process to be diminished by the fraudulent votes of felons, illegals and "dead" people. Nor can we let the votes of our military personnel be
disrespected as they often are.
If you find it simply too inconvenient to provide ID you have the right to stay home.
If someone went through the bother of obtaining a fake id, don't you think they would put there own photo on it?
So because there is the possibility that someone might still be able to commit a fraud and get around the law, the answer is to require nothing? When did a fool proof system become the requirement for a government program or law? I don't know of one that meets that standard. Some people commit murder and get away with it, so should we get rid of the laws against murder? Should we shut down everything that has a chance of someone fraudulently taking advantage of it?
So because there is the possibility that someone might still be able to commit a fraud and get around the law, the answer is to require nothing? When did a fool proof system become the requirement for a government program or law? I don't know of one that meets that standard. Some people commit murder and get away with it, so should we get rid of the laws against murder? Should we shut down everything that has a chance of someone fraudulently taking advantage of it?
How about we start requiring an annual election residency search where voters would have to submit to a physical search of their residence, prior to voting. That would certainly cut down on fraud. I've actually heard of cases where someone's actual residency was called into question.
How about we start requiring an annual election residency search where voters would have to submit to a physical search of their residence, prior to voting. That would certainly cut down on fraud. I've actually heard of cases where someone's actual residency was called into question.
How about we start requiring an annual election residency search where voters would have to submit to a physical search of their residence, prior to voting. That would certainly cut down on fraud. I've actually heard of cases where someone's actual residency was called into question.
Yeah because that's the equivalent of being asked to show ID...
You're the one suggesting that we shouldn't ask for ID because there is a chance of someone having a fake ID; are you advocating that we need to take such steps to stop fraud, or are you saying that since there will be a chance of fraud, we should keep it as loose as possible with minimal checks?
There are cases where residency is called into question. I know someone that it happened to and the address on the records was not accurate because they hadn't updated the information. They didn't do it to commit fraud, but voting out of district could certainly be used to commit fraud, particularly in close local elections where a small number of votes can matter.
Statutory law (Article 23A, Sec. 46) specifically prohibits property ownership or holding an interest in property as a requirement for voting in municipal elections. Furthermore, in 1986, the U. S. District Court for Maryland held in the case of Tobin v.Town of North Beach that permitting non-resident property owners to vote dilutes the votes of bona fide residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the courts have struck down municipal land ownership as a requirement for holding public office.
Residency
Three decades ago the U. S. Supreme Court mandated that no government may deny a resident the right to register to vote for a period longer than necessary to determine valid residency, which is normally 30 days or less (Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 30 (1972)). Municipalities may keep their voter registration books open until as late as Election Day if they choose to use a supplemental list in addition to the county list.
Often questions arise concerning residency for both voters and candidates for municipal office. Maryland Courts define residence as meaning “domicile.” Domicile is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) as “[t]he permanent residence of a person or the place to which he intends to return even though he may actually reside elsewhere.” A person can have several dwelling places but only one domicile designated as his or her intended primary legal residence. The controlling factor in determining domicile is a person’s intent, which can be shown objectively by numerous factors that include where a person actually lives or where s/he votes as well as where taxes are paid, where mail is received, the location of addresses listed on contracts and other documents like bank accounts and licenses, and where personal belongings are kept and property is owned.
Yeah because that's the equivalent of being asked to show ID...
You're the one suggesting that we shouldn't ask for ID because there is a chance of someone having a fake ID; are you advocating that we need to take such steps to stop fraud, or are you saying that since there will be a chance of fraud, we should keep it as loose as possible with minimal checks?
There are cases where residency is called into question. I know someone that it happened to and the address on the records was not accurate because they hadn't updated the information. They didn't do it to commit fraud, but voting out of district could certainly be used to commit fraud, particularly in close local elections where a small number of votes can matter.
No, I'm the one saying people should not be denied their right to vote for the lack of a photo id.
I'm the one asserting that the incidents of people pretending to be someone else in order to vote is quite low to non-existent in the United States.
I'm the one asserting that voting fraud like residency violations are a much bigger issue.
If we are truly serious about cleaning up the process then we should focus on the areas where significant levels of fraud are actually being committed.
Instead we are focusing on an area which will not significantly improve the process, but will disenfranchise a significant number of voters. On top of that the proposed solution to this non-existent problem can easily be circumvented by an organized group intent on committing voter fraud.
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.