Now that's some admirable forward thinking!

I don't have much, paplanner, but put me on your pledge list! I love people who have the guts who stand on principle. It is not only admirable forward thinking, it is just plain admirable!!!! You go, pa!

I don't think it is against the law not to submit your ID, the problem will come if you then try to vote. Any "forward thinking" plans on what you will do after they tell you "sorry, you will not be allowed to vote"?

I have no idea how to help, but this is admirable.

You know ... people older than about 65 don't always have a birth certificate because those were not required in all states until the mid 1940s.

And you have to have a birth certificate to get a government issued photo ID.

How does that work?

Ban the old people from voting?

Ohhhhh. I get it. Trying to outlaw social security after everyone paid into it.

Might be helpful to put up a facebook link to send donations.

Please get arrested at an earlier election-a primary or a referendum so that the court has time to rule that photo IDs are unconstitutional. You will have made headlines and made a huge improvement that will help us all. Many elections are won or lost by one vote. John F. Kennedy won by one vote per precinct).

so that the court has time to rule that photo IDs are unconstitutional.

Ann, dear, they have already ruled them constitutional.

It's a shame that we have four dishonest, bought-and-paid-for conservatives on the U. S. Supreme Court. Past courts would have declared this kind of nonsense unconstitutional in a heartbeat.

My civil disobedience is simply going to be refusing to show a photo id, demanding the my right to vote and refusing to move until I'm physically removed. I don't need to raise any more contributions, the occupy folks around here are doing quite well in that regard. I am tired of radical republicans attempting to solve non existent problems just to win an election and steal more public money. I've been voting since 1968 and have never missed an election, this general election will probably be the first one I miss, but some one has to take a stand against taking a shotgun shell to a fly.

We're all with you paplannerll.

This is just abominable and I am loosening up my swatting arm!

Hey, Pa! I'll contribute to your bail fund! Worthy venture, willing to support!

Rob...they also said corporations were people, and money = speech. And they said African Americans were 3/5ths of a white person vote... They don't exactly get all these things right the first time, hun.

"Why do certain people their 'rights' should outweigh others."

Because the people that are being affected are "other" - and therefore NOT ME, and "those people" are just lazy......

Now do you understand.....

Because blood as a cement of social and institutional change evidently doesn't last forever. The blood shed by the protestors of the Civil Rights Movement as well as those who fought and died for the eight hour day, among others rights so earned, is eroding to nothing and society is sliding back in time. Back before the Civil Rights Movement. Back to the Gilded Age, to sweat shops and children being crushed to death in factories.

Right on, Don. It is so sad that there are people in this country who have lost any semblance of what made the United States so great.

It's amazing that they have put their arrogance above the country good. It is a flat out shame.

This list is almost funny. So many forms of ID that can be used to get a birth certificate in order to get the ID needed to vote, but none can actually be used to vote.
If they think voter fraud is bad, how about identity theft?  Yet a checkbook, credit card, utility bill, and signed lease can get you started on an approved ID for voting.

This also effects the elderly.

Amazingly, the US constitution has no guarantee that US citizens be allowed to cast a vote in elections.

Some people born in Oklahoma before 1940 have no birth certificate.

Oklahoma did not require birth records until US law required that in 1940.

The last state to issue birth certificates for all live births was Illinois in about 1945.

Some US citizens over about 65 years may be unable to produce a birth certificate.

Some of those people may have never paid a utility bill, they may have no passport, no credit card, and no lease payments if they are cared for by a son or daughter.

I can see that this law obviously exploits this phenomenon to disenfranchise elderly voters - which is exactly what you need to do to get rid of social security.

Add to the list for elderly -> marriage certificate or military service record.

an attorney to take her case pro-bono

What case? The supreme court ruled on the legality of voter ID requirements in 2006 by a vote of 6-3. Liberal justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

(The law) is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process...

John Paul Stevens is no liberal, he is what passes for a liberal today because the political spectrum moved so far to the right. When Stevens was nominated he was described as a moderate to conservative republican. An just because the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that its ok to emulate nazi germany and soviet russia doesn't mean its right. The Supreme Court also declared corporations are people, money is speech, a slave cannot be a citizen, separate but equal is ok, its fine to execute innocent human beings and it is just fine to overturn an election. The United States Supreme Court is merely another adjunct of Wall Street, it's veneer of legitimacy may be disappearing more slowly than Congress, but it is disappearing. All of this is gonna be moot soon, given the depression we are now in, the crash about to come as the Euro zone dissolves, and the environmental catastrophes occurring all over the world. Tinker around the edges of the trappings of power all you want, putting a band aid on a tumor does not staunch the infection. Its too late for crony capitalism to save itself, within 10 years it will either change to a more democratic and less ideological system, or it will be a world of slaves and serfs controlled through violent repression and history tells me the latter is not sustainable for extended periods of time.

Because the entire premise behind Voter ID is to prevent ILLEGALS from voting and I for one ( a LIBERAL) think it's NECESSARY seeing as ILLEGALS count for a HUGE population in this country.

In Wisconsin's 2004 election saw seven fraudulent votes out of three million, all of them felons who'd lost their voting rights. I'm not sure how requiring a photo ID would have prevented them from voting.

Shady said: "...they need to be able to prove first that voter fraud is a problem, and second, that these higher hurdles will reduce it. Their rationale fails on both counts. The government should always err on the side of more rights for the people."

This is exactly the point. Bravo for beating me to it Shady! I tip my Interwebs hat off to you for getting the point.

Because the entire premise behind Voter ID is to prevent ILLEGALS from voting and I for one ( a LIBERAL) think it's NECESSARY seeing as ILLEGALS count for a HUGE population in this country.

I enjoy this argument Smc because you completely ignored the point. Shady already stated (in the comment of his/hers that I re-posted) that in order to make the claim that voter ID laws are to prevent voter fraud (such as preventing non-citizens from voting) you must a. prove that there actually is a problem in existence and then b. prove that these laws actually help to curb that problem. By making your post, Smc, all you did was re-iterate the argument that Shady had already denounced. At the very least I would say your post was redundant, but more to the point I think this is a classic example of what I always warn people about: stop reading/listening to information for what you would LIKE to hear and instead ACTUALLY read/listen to what is written/being said.

any type of numbers on just how many of those Hugh population of Voting ILLEGALS?

that number is maybe just slightly higher then actual voter fraud. which is what .0003%

Excuse me for not reading every frigging post. I only responded to ONE. I'm not referring to Wisconsin. How many illegals ( mostly hispanic) do you think are living in Wisconsin ?? I'm talking about states like CA, CO, NM, AZ, TX where La Raza has a HUGE influence and there are many hispanics in local, state and even nat'l gov't office who are influenced by the ILLEGAL population. You can't tell me that illegals are not voting and keeping or getting these ppl into office to try to push their own agenda.

yes it was.

and i see you have absolutely no clue! as once again do you have any info on what you are trying to push?

I'm talking about states like CA, CO, NM, AZ, TX where La Raza has a HUGE influence and there are many hispanics in local, state and even nat'l gov't office who are influenced by the ILLEGAL population. You can't tell me that illegals are not voting and keeping or getting these ppl into office to try to push their own agenda.

....nothing in your response here refutes anything I stated Smc. Neither does it excuse your lack of information regarding the counter-arguments I brought up. Hence I respond as such: still waiting...

do you really think someone who is illegally present in this country would risk going to vote in a major election, or in ANY election?

Actually, a woman who was here illegally from the Phillipines voted in my county in the 2010 election. She was caught, and I assume deported, but don't assume that it doesn't happen. Fake IDs are easily available in the underground illegal community, most have multiple ID, and could theoretically vote several times. Not saying it does happen, just that it certainly could.

SMC, yes we can tell you that illegals aren't getting them into office to push their agenda... All the states you mentioned have enough of a LEGAL hispanic population to get those government officials elected... and with how many whites out in the world will never vote for, and are all up in arms over a black president, I can't say I blame them for voting Mexican, the white american population, with the exception of young people, vote their race as well.

If they want to say that the clear and urgent cause is to stop voter fraud, they need to be able to prove first that voter fraud is a problem, and second, that these higher hurdles will reduce it. Their rationale fails on both counts...

This is a false argument. There is NO need to show that fraud is a problem. There is no need to show even the potential of voter fraud. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling has already made the case...on BOTH counts.

Here's a few quotes from (liberal) Justice John Paul Stevens:

We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters...

(Can you find individuals in unique circumstances where it is surprisingly difficult? Sure. But not a whole class of people.)

[The law] is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.

Now you can dismiss this as partisan if you like but you can't get any more legally definitive than the Supreme Court.

This is a false argument. There is NO need to show that fraud is a problem. There is no need to show even the potential of voter fraud. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling has already made the case...on BOTH counts.

No RobDon it is not a false argument in this case. The argument being presented forward on this thread is not one about whether or not it's legal to implement such laws. The argument presented in Wisconsin and other states has been that these aggressive ID measures are in response to voter fraud and that implementing such laws will address the issue. Neither of these issues has been addressed by the state representatives attempting to justify them, nor indeed has it been by the advocates on this blog who tout them. If the conversation were about whether or not it is legal to pass these laws then you would be correct, but the argument is about whether or not it's ethical to pass these laws when no discernible harm has been proven and no discernible evidence has been presented to fend against said hypothetical harm. Even if we try to take your argument is valid- the argument that states may, if they so choose, implement these laws- it still does not explain why a state would unless there is a clear connection that can be drawn between these laws and their effectiveness. Since one, as of yet, hasn't been drawn then we cannot conclude such a law is ethical or practical.

So, Mouzer, do you think the Supreme Court validated a "unethical" and "unpractical" law?

In all states there is some form of establishing who you are when you vote. You don't just walk in and cast a vote. Why is that? To give integrity to the process and confidence that the process is fair and accountable. The Supreme Court said that this is what voter IDs accomplish AND that it is not illegal.

Everyone (I'm dangerously assuming here) agrees there needs to be some accountability in the system. You can't have someone come off the street, vote, and then go out. This would invite all kinds of fraud. So, states issue laws/guidelines to minimize this possibility even without the presence of fraud.

I'm saying the questions posed have already been asked and answered but not in the way it was asked. I don't have to prove fraud is a problem, just that voter IDs would lessen the likelihood of fraud and that has been established. The courts decisions stated as much (not just making it legal).

So, Mouzer, do you think the Supreme Court validated a "unethical" and "unpractical" law?

In all states there is some form of establishing who you are when you vote. You don't just walk in and cast a vote. Why is that? To give integrity to the process and confidence that the process is fair and accountable. The Supreme Court said that this is what voter IDs accomplish AND that it is not illegal.

Now we've just reached the apex of hyperbole RD. They were not voting on whether or not it helped to reduce voter fraud nor was voter fraud reduction proven as part of the testimony in the SCOTUS ruling. The SCOTUS final statement says that states have a valid interest in establishing procedures to protect the integrity of the vote and to reduce voter fraud and that Voter ID laws do not surmount as an egregious means if they are accomplishing this merit. If you finish reading that NY Times article you will see that the court left it wide open for people to contend that if the law does not address the issue of fraudulent votes then it is egregious and therefore is impeding constitutional rights. Beyond this a court ruling that it is OK for a law to exist is not an endorsement of that law. SCOTUS does not validate laws- they uphold whether or not a law is in conflict w/ other standing statutes or if a law is unconstitutional. Stating that a law is constitutional is not an endorsement of the law or it's practices or it's practicality.

Everyone (I'm dangerously assuming here) agrees there needs to be some accountability in the system. You can't have someone come off the street, vote, and then go out. This would invite all kinds of fraud. So, states issue laws/guidelines to minimize this possibility even without the presence of fraud.

This dangerously borderlines an attack on homeless people, but I am going to assume that's not what you meant. No one has asserted nor provided evidence that these laws reduce voter fraud. There is the hypothetical harm of voter fraud and there is the hypothetical proposition that voter ID laws will address the harm. Until either are proven you cannot argue that it is ethical to implement the law; you can only argue that it is not unconstitutional or in conflict w/ other statutes.

I'm saying the questions posed have already been asked and answered but not in the way it was asked. I don't have to prove fraud is a problem, just that voter IDs would lessen the likelihood of fraud and that has been established. The courts decisions stated as much (not just making it legal).

If you posit as your reasoning behind a law that voter fraud is a problem then you most certainly do have to prove that your claim is valid. There are lots of laws that states can pass that would be constitutional, but that address problems that do not exist. These laws are neither ethical or practical. An example- Sunday liquor laws. Laws on what clothing articles people can wear and on what days. Laws barring people from driving certain colored cars on certain days, etc. These laws are primarily archaic in their origins and exist only because people have a naive assumption that by deleting them from charters and constitutions they will cease to be meantionable, but that is besides the point. The point is there are lots of "legal" laws that come into practice that do not measure ethical grounds or practical grounds. The SCOTUS did not contest this much in their ruling. Therefore WI arguing that there suddenly needs to be new implementation of laws certainly is going to draw scrutiny from people who do not believe the problem exists or that the current system doesn't adequately address the problem. Wisconsin and other such states have failed to address this issue. Oh and that SCOTUS ruling? Does not address the issue either. Additionally the SCOTUS ruling does not, nor did it intend to, establish that Voter ID laws actually reduce the likelihood of harm. If that were the case then all you would have to do to silence my criticisms is pull up the ruling and recite the evidence they used to prove that it does in fact deter voter fraud. This is not possible, however, because the ruling focused on whether or not the hypothetical threat and the hypothetical impositions were in conflict. They were not and therefore it is not unconstitutional to implement such measures. This does not make them practical or ethical and it does not serve as evidence of their necessity.

Smc31569

When you say "I am in favor of getting tough on voter fraud" what you are actually saying is "I want to get rid of social security and medicare".

You are incorrect when you mention that voter fraud is real. If that were true, then at least one person would have been prosecuted. We all know that never happened or the guilty party would have been all over Fox News and Saturday Night Live.

The intent of the voter ID law is to prohibit voting for elderly state residents.

States like Oklahoma and Indiana did not require birth certificates until 1940 and 1945 respectively.

That means that if you are over 65, and cared for by your children, then you may be unable to produce anything required by law to vote in a Wisconsin election.

The reason becomes obvious when you consider that Republicans are trying to eliminate social security and medicare - which means you need to cut off voters.

Problem is that there is nothing in the US constitution that guarantees the right to vote.

Gender and race cannot be used to disenfranchise voters, but age discrimination is perfectly legal, and constitutional.

Profoundly unethical to discriminate against Wisconsin voters based on age, but constitutional, which is what the "voter fraud" laws are actually intended to do.

So when your social security and medicare are cut off after you reach 65, are you going to say "I meant to do that?"

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

When the case was argued before the Supreme Court in January, there was considerable back-and-forth over how much of a burden the Indiana law could be in an age when an overwhelming majority of people old enough to vote also possess a driver's license or other form of photo identification.

Indiana's law allows voters who lack photo identification to cast a provisional ballot, then appear at their county courthouse within 10 days to show identification. Chief Justice Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, said during the argument of the case in January that such requirements are not onerous. The law also makes provisions for people in nursing homes.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs' challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, "The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified."

This is what the court argued. There is nothing there in the affirmation that it actually deters voter fraud nor was the issue of voter fraud the direct contest. The direct contest was that the law amounted to a poll tax and the SCOTUS was ruling no it does not amount to a poll tax and it is not, therefore, unconstitutional. The issues the law hypothetically wishes to address were not discussed except in the hypothetical.

Therefore WI arguing that there suddenly needs to be new implementation of laws certainly is going to draw scrutiny from people who do not believe the problem exists or that the current system doesn't adequately address the problem. Wisconsin and other such states have failed to address this issue. Oh and that SCOTUS ruling? Does not address the issue either.

Bleh I wish it wouldn't keep kicking me out. Is anyone else having that problem? Anyways what I meant here was there was no explanation in the ruling as to why current laws are inadequate that would support such a measure.

Betsy Lutrell

Would you mind posting a link that proves that an actual illegal vote occurred?

Just because someone was "caught" doesn't mean anything was wrong.

The story cannot be true unless someone went to jail or was deported, and that would have been published somewhere if something was proven.

A friend of mine married a woman from the Philippines. She became a citizen when the marriage was performed at the US embassy.

• http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_757.html

She can vote. They own a bakery.

Most women that immigrate from the Philippines automatically become US citizens by marriage. The marriage license is sufficient to prove citizenship, which is only revoked by divorce.

Similar provisions exist for military marriages.

Phillipinos over 64 are also US citizens without marriage according to the 14th amendment because they were born in US territory.

The Mouzer

Current laws allow everyone over 65 years old to vote.

The new laws do not.

No birth certificate exists for some people born in places like Oklahoma and Illinois.

New voting laws are intended to make it easier to get rid of social security and medicare by preventing US citizens from voting if they are too old to be able to obtain a birth certificate.

Its funny that this left leaning board wants to stand up for seniors to vote without voter ID's which as a demo, seniors are generally more conservative than their younger voters and vote against any increase in any measures for bonds or tax increases. I would assume that most posters here would want to hinder older, conservative voters from voting.

Apparently, your assumtions are wrong Hank.

RoboDon, If you are comfortable obeying a corrupt supreme court and carrying your papers with you at all times to prove you legally belong where you are at the moment, then by all means obey. I am not comfortable obeying an unjust law, I refuse to accept the validity of voter suppression in order to limit fraud. Between 2001 and 2008 the FBI found 83 cases of voter fraud out of more than 300 million votes cast, so you are using a shotgun to kill a flea. RoboDon you are an intelligent human being, you're posts over time show that unlike a lot of right wing apologists you actually think. How can you accept a sledge hammer solution to a microscopic problem and intellectually justify it as something other than voter suppression? You know why its being done, you just refuse to accept reality.

Mouzer, we may have talked all around this issue, here's my last comments:

First,

This dangerously borderlines an attack on homeless people, but I am going to assume that's not what you meant.

You are correct in your assumption. I used the term "come off the street" to generically mean "enter the voting facility." The reason we have any requirement of name, address, etc. is so no one can go to several voting locations and vote. No reference to homeless was intended.

And lastly to the issue of valid, appropriate, etc. You are quoting from news articles, I am quoting from the ruling itself. Part of the justification of voter IDs being constitutional was that it addressed the issue of voter fraud and election integrity...it was in the ruling. That is what I'm saying, the ruling itself stated it addressed voter fraud and election integrity. You can still disagree...

Here's one portion (and it is in legalese so you have to read carefully, or at least I do).

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. Finally, Indiana’s interest in protecting public confidence in elections, while closely related to its interest in preventing voter fraud, has independent significance, because such confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

Granted the ruling acknowledges that the fraud has not happened but that logic demonstrates it could and is a real concern. Almost as if there would be no way to correct it AFTER it happened and that it has happened before elsewhere legitimizes the concern.

Go and read the entire decision, it clearly is not just ruling the law is not a poll tax, it is saying because of the need for election integrity voter IDs are not an unreasonable burden.

scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf

Last words?

...but that logic demonstrates it could and is a real concern.

Again I already addressed this. They were addressing the issue of the hypothetical. They did not address whether or not these measures actually prove to protect the integrity, but they did state that if such measures would then Indiana has a valid interest in doing so because Indiana must protect the security of the vote and voter confidence in the process. From your above quote:

Each of Indiana’s asserted interests is unquestionably relevant to its interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process

he 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.

This does not address how Voter ID's help to decrease voter fraud. All the ruling states- and I said this in my above post so now I'm a little annoyed at having to repeat myself for a third time, sorry if I'm snippy- is that a state has a valid interest in preventing fraud and if such measures will help then such measures cannot be considered unconstitutional or egregious. I already stated this. This does not prove that these laws actually reduce voter fraud. This does not prove that the current system was incapable of addressing voter fraud, thus necessitating newer, more restrictive laws. As of yet the state has still not made it's case as to why these laws need to be enacted in the first place. Again just because a state can do something does not make it practical or necessary. If Voter ID laws do not adequately address the measure then this means you are passing useless legislation. Conservatives do not genuinely like wasteful government or intrusive government so I am confused as to why this is a point of contest. Additionally if it were so simplistic to prove this it would have a. been argued before the court in something other than the hypothetical and b. you'd be able to find valid evidence proving that these laws work to reduce voter fraud.

The only thing I can see- and the SCOTUS ruling upholds this objection that I've also made before- is that voter registration laws increase voter fraud or fail to deter it/decrease it.

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.

Voter registration- ftr- was the first means of "preventing" voter fraud. Now Voter ID's are being presented to "prevent" voter fraud. It did not work the first time (and there was no evidence the first time, either) and I am not convinced it will work this time. In both instances these laws were enacted to address the hypothetical and were not based on factual grounds. Again, if I am wrong then please cite the source because if I am wrong that means there is evidence to the contrary.

Bleh my last paragraph sort've trailed off (I really shouldn't blog and work at the same time lol). What I meant to say was voter registration laws were introduced initially to address the issue of voter fraud. They, like these Voter ID laws, were argued in the hypothetical and were also found to be constitutional (ftr). But now we have to introduce Voter ID's and Voter ID laws because, apparently, those registration laws we passed didn't effectively prevent voter fraud. They were so ineffective, apparently, that now the argument is w/o Voter ID's we cannot validate the registers and therefore voter fraud is more likely to occur. The registration laws- like these ID laws- were argued in the hypothetical, but were not based on any actual evidence. The ID laws, now, are being argued as means of validating the registers which have to be passed because apparently the registers (which were supposed to prevent fraud the first time around) did not work. How do we know this will work? I am OK w/ these laws being passed if someone can validate the claim that it actually will reduce voter fraud, help protect against it, and actually secure the integrity of the ballot. As of yet no one has been able to make that argument.

Mouzer...I'll be brief and hopefully let you work, too. I think we are talking to sides of the same coin. You (others) are wanting proof that there is fraud, has been fraud, is likely to be fraud and that these measures will prevent it.

I am saying (I think like the SCOTUS) that to let just anyone vote anytime anywhere without some accountability invites fraud. Measures that limit the likelihood of this happening are appropriate and Voter ID is a valid part of that measure.

I'm trying to be simple here and not go into the nuances, so is this correct? If not, can you attempt to concisely state both positions. Thanks.

It is interesting to note that there have been no attempts to suppress voter registration or voters here in Oklahoma. Why? Because, as the only state where every county voted against Barak Obama, we already "vote right."

It is interesting to note that there have been no attempts to suppress voter registration or voters here in Oklahoma.

It would be "interesting" if it were true. By voter suppression I am assuming you mean "voter IDs." Here is the following from ok.gov:

The proof of identity law (sometimes called the "voter ID" law) was contained in State Question 746 (Legislative Referendum No. 347). The question appeared on the ballot at the November 2, 2010, General Election, and it was approved by 74% of the votes cast. The proof of identity law requires every voter who votes in person at the precinct polling place or during early voting at the County Election Board to show proof of identity before receiving a ballot.

I do not want non-citizens voting in our elections. I disagree that felons should be barred from voting, that people should not be able to cast multiple ballots if they live in multiple states (at the state level, anywho), and that people who do not have hard residencies should be barred from voting. I don't know how you feel about these latter elements, but to the extent of wanting to ensure the integrity of the vote we seem to be in mutual agreement. I also concede that voting fraud does take place and that measures have to be put into place to help ward against it. This, too, it would seem we're in agreement on.

I do not contest that voting fraud actually happens, but I did bring it up for the sake of argument because before someone can state "I am putting a measure in place to prevent voter fraud" they must demonstrate that the problem exists outside the hypothetical. Once they demonstrate that the issue exists they then must demonstrate how the current system allows for voter fraud (meaning how the current system doesn't adequately address the issue). If the current system does address the issue then there isn't a point in enacting new legislation, now is there? Likewise if the problem doesn't actually exist then there wouldn't be need for new legislation.

This brings me to my first point of argument: Demonstrating the inadequacy of the current system. The current system asks that you register w/ the state in order to prove that you are a resident of that state and that you are a valid US citizen. I do not feel anyone has answered why the registration system doesn't work well enough to prevent fraud. What I feel has happened is the registration system has shown how it creates fraud in the form of barring homeless people, dual-homed individuals or intransigent individuals, or felons from voting. But my personal feelings about the matter may be biased, so I need a more objective rationale. Presumably those who are arguing that we need to amend the registration system w/ the addition of a Voter ID law have reason enough to believe that the registration system alone is not enough to prevent fraud. All I am asking is that they simply demonstrate as much, of which I do not feel has happened. If the registration system does adequately address the issue then there is no need for a new law, is there? The only time we can argue that a new law has to be created to address the issue is if we can demonstrate that the current law is not sufficient to address said issue.

That then brings us to the next point of contention in my argument: efficacy of the policy. If the proposal- to make people show ID before voting- is supposed to fix the current errors in our registration system then we must demonstrate how this will be so. If Voter ID laws cannot address the issue of voter fraud then there is no point in passing these laws, is there? What is more- and probably where I get most annoyed- is that by the states spending so much time trying to legally justify these laws as being prudent, they may end up spending tons of cash implementing the laws and enforcing them on something that ends up being pointless. Is it so much to ask that someone demonstrate that a proposed law actually will address the problems it says it's going to address? What if my cynicism about voter registration is correct? What if Voter ID laws end up creating the same dynamic? Then all we've accomplished is to bar legal citizens from voting and done nothing to address the actual issue of fraud.

okajkdfjl;kjsd;k spell check! ;-) meant intransient not intransigent.

before someone can state "I am putting a measure in place to prevent voter fraud" they must demonstrate that the problem exists outside the hypothetical.

Mouzer, have you never moved a rug BEFORE it became a tripping hazard or do you wait until someone accidentally trips? I just think you can make the case for a "protective" measure without waiting on the "danger" to actually happen. I think we understand each other here but have two different valid opinions. 1) Why add burden and difficulty to a system that is working/not broken and 2)Why not add extra protection to keep the system from becoming broken.

I do not feel anyone has answered why the registration system doesn't work well enough to prevent fraud.

The flaw in the current system is anyone knowing a voter's name can walk in and vote for that person. To do that under voter ID would require a lot more effort.

Okay, so what are the statistics on people waiting in line for hours to vote, only to find out that their name is already crossed off the list, because someone had "claimed" to be them, and had voted? In reality, are people actually stealing someone else's name in order to vote? Is that due to the high cost of voting? Is there really an overwhelming national problem with this? What's the deal?

To do that under voter ID would require a lot more effort.

But you're assuming this. That, again, is where I'm pulling my hair out. I have voted in person and via mail (always prefer mail when I can). When you go in person all they do is glance at your ID and then let you pass. They don't take the ID from your hand and don't spend a lot of time looking at it. I guarantee that if I went in drag I could exchange my ID w/ four or five people before the person at the booth ever noticed that we were using the same ID. And the only way they'd notice would be if there was 1 person checking (usually- at least in the ID states I've been in- there are multiple persons). So if you really wanted to commit fraud it's as easy to do as anything else (although when I say this I'm not trying to make the because-you-can't-ever-stop-someone-who-really-wants-to-don't-try-anything argument). The registration system, ftr, is also the same system that counts when your ballot is set up. So the second the same person sends in a ballot it triggers the system to catch on (which is how we know about voter fraud situations in the first place). So if stopping multiple voters is your worry I do not see how voter ID prevents this or makes it harder. Do you have an example that shows that states like Colorado (which requires ID) has less voter fraud than states that do not require ID for in person voting? Although to be fair CO may be a bad example since the majority of people there vote via mail anyways.

Mouzer, have you never moved a rug BEFORE it became a tripping hazard or do you wait until someone accidentally trips? I just think you can make the case for a "protective" measure without waiting on the "danger" to actually happen.

I am not arguing that protective measures are a bad step to take. What I am arguing is that you do not know that this measure is any more protective than any other measure. Nor do you know that by adding this addendum to the current registration restrictions that this will reduce the likelihood of fraud. You are basing your thesis on a hypothesis, but you have not done the scientific study to conclude whether or not your hypothesis is correct. You've came to the conclusion "yes it's correct! pass the policy!" w/o ever doing the study. And that's where I have a problem. The rug analogy is not accurate because I can reasonably deduce that people will trip over the rug. I cannot reasonably deduce that making people present ID's will somehow lower voter fraud. A measure is only preventative so long as it actually helps stop or lower the problem from happening. As an analogy one of the ways in which we prevent the spread of STD's is by telling people to wear condoms every time they have sex w/ a different partner. But we could not assert that condoms would prevent people from getting STD's until we actually had studied the differences in use and had data of which to compare. It was only after those studies came out that we were then able to say "this is a good idea" and then move from there to making it into policy. The motivation to prevent STD's was the pre-emptive action. The study was to ensure it was purposeful instead of wasted money, time, and effort on something that wouldn't work.

1) Why add burden and difficulty to a system that is working/not broken and 2)Why not add extra protection to keep the system from becoming broken.

In general I do think we are agreeing on these two principles.

In general I do think we are agreeing on these two principles.

Common ground at last! Next time let's start there! Thanks, Mouzer.

OK, so if this is such a problem, why can't people just vote with their social security number? We are all required to have one of those. Why can't we prove our identity with a bill/traffic ticket/anything else we used before, and write our social down? Saves everyone money.
This doesn't disenfranchise old people or homeless people... If this was an issue of voter integrity, we would use the system that exists currently, for everyone, no matter what. we wouldn't be using a system that not everyone participates in.

also, this comment made me laugh

Mouzer, have you never moved a rug BEFORE it became a tripping hazard or do you wait until someone accidentally trips? I just think you can make the case for a "protective" measure without waiting on the "danger" to actually happen.

That's like selling alligator repellent in wisconsin. You didn't see alligators before, you say? well, that doesn't mean you won't in the future, but when you continue to not see them, it just means the repellent is working.

There was a voter fraud rate of .0002% or 7 people for 3,000,000 votes cast. They were all felons...who all could have ID's. So, requiring ID's will, what? Make that not happen? It's a catch 22 anyway. If there is more voter fraud in the future, they'll say "look it was happening all along and we're finding more now" and if there is the same or less they'll say "look it's working". It's Bullsh*t legislation that costs people money and keeps people born before 1940 from voting if they don't have an ID or a birth certificate.

And quit bringing up the supreme court. They said that African Americans were 3/5ths of a white person's vote once too. They don't always get it right.

In general I do think we are agreeing on these two principles.

Common ground at last! Next time let's start there! Thanks, Mouzer.

I didn't think we were THAT far apart on the issue RD =). Lol, maybe we were? All I was trying to say was that I am not convinced yet that this measure is necessary, will do what it's supposed to do, and won't be a waste of time. I wasn't trying to be a giant brick wall about protecting the integrity of the ballot. But I think in many regards this new system has made old threads a PITA- so I think I will bid you adieu until next time, my friend =).

I have had a state issued voter ID since 1968, it is the only identification I will produce at the polls. Republicans are great a creating an illusion of a problem where none exists. The only voter fraud of significance that has occurred lately, has been in the counting of votes in republican precincts in Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio. I realize there are some folks who either believe these photo id laws are needed to prevent voter fraud, unfortunately they are wrong. But then again one thing about American right wing radicals, they do not let facts get in the way of their opinions. If they can take someone's rights away for whatever reason, then they just gotta do it, its a genetic predisposition.

The Supreme Court would beg to disagree.

From the court's ruling:

The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

Of course the Supreme Court members would not think getting an ID is a problem.
I live in a seniors' apartment complex, where at least 15 don't have cars, so they have no driver's licenses. The location for IDs is on the north side of town in a suburb where buses don't run. Many states suddenly decided it was "necessary" to consolidate those so some counties don't even have drivers' license offices. Between that and increasing restrictions on voter registration drives in malls, etc., red states are making it difficult for a lot more than the 3 illegal voters that can be verified.

Ms. Evelyn, your point is well taken. If there is a class more likely to be burdened by the requirement it would be our seniors like yourself. I didn't say it wasn't "a problem," I was quoting the Supreme Court ruling.

And they weren't saying it would easy or not a problem but that it had not be shown to unduly burden any class of people. I hope if you are in one of the states just enacting one of these laws that civic groups and others will see this as a opportunity (and privilege) to serve your neighbors.

The new voter ID laws are intended specifically to make it easier to eliminate social security and medicare.

Several states did not issue birth certificates to all citizens until after 1945, so some people in their 60s and older cannot produce a birth certificate.

Oklahoma, Illinois, Georgia, and Louisiana are some of those places.

The Supreme Court has been acting unconstitutionally since Marbury V. Madison, and Congress and the President for some reason seem reluctant to assert their constitutional rights to regulate the court. The Court is now, and has been since its establishment the last bastion of the rich against the masses who might actually control Congress some day, or God forbid another of those Roosevelt's gets into the White House.

SCOTUS appointment for life should be abolished. SCOTUS should be an elected position for a finite number of years.

My intent is to get arrested, to demonstrate how unjust the law is, and a provisional ballot only is valid for Federal Offices. The only thing that keeps the plutocrats in power is our obedience to their absurd rules, and the only way to kick them out is to disobey those rules at every opportunity. Civil disobedience is like a ripple in a pond, one little pebble disturbs the smooth operation and moves another ripple and then another and pretty soon you have a wave. If we are going to regain some value and dignity as human beings in this sick society we have got to start standing up to power.

You said it!

177,399 Wisconsin seniors don't have driver's licenses or photo ID's

It seems you're the only one off basis here. Just because "most people" have something does not make it justified Smc. This is known as an "appeal to the people" argument. You're saying that because most people have something (and subsequently because you have something) that it therefore makes it justified to infringe upon or disenfranchise someone else for not having said thing. Such an argument is fallacious in it's reasoning and quite honestly is meant to detract from the greater issue (and the issue the thread was initially posted about). This latter fact is highly amusing when considering that you're accusing Maddowblog of being misleading when in reality you are the one who is being misleading (not staying on topic, making fallacious arguments, detracting from the issue at hand, excusing the behavior, etc). Furthermore I should point out that in making the argument that you've made you are excusing the fact that it will prevent some people from voting. So you are, in effect, agreeing w/ the idea that some people should not be able to vote. Are you doing so because it's necessary? No- in fact you state as much in your post: I don't care if no one "needed" one before etc. Your argument isn't based on whether or not a voter ID is necessary or legal, it isn't based on whether or not it will prevent other people from voting, and it isn't based on whether or not there's any solid logic behind the rationale. It's solely based on the fact that "other people have to do it, so why not you?" Remember when mom used to ask "if your friends all jumped off a bridge, would you?" My advice? Don't jump off the bridge ;-)

"Because the entire premise behind Voter ID is to prevent ILLEGALS from voting and I for one ( a LIBERAL) think it's NECESSARY seeing as ILLEGALS count for a HUGE population in this count. "

Faux liberal. Justifiies Az1070 law and clones. Not a single liberal I know does that. And the issue here is a backdoor poll tax. That is blatantly unconstitutional. But for the sake of keeping out "illegals" (of which my great great grandfather was one,) you could also justify the ALSO illegal civic literacy requirement for voting as that Colorado political office contestant had suggested. He wasn't liberal either.

Good thing you told us you're a liberal, otherwise we might confuse you for a member of the Scott Walker brigade, based on you posting (several times) the exact same arguments.

You say that everyone should have a form of photo ID. Well, as has been said MANY MANY TIMES by Maddow and other liberals, not everyone has such ID. Regardless of how inexpensive it may be to get one, if the cost is not $0 and it is required for voting, it is a blatantly unconstitutional poll tax. Further, to denigrate people for being too "LAZY" to vote is further missing the point. At the same time some of these voter ID laws are being passed, hours on the state agencies where they can get an ID are being cut back. So a citizen without ID may have to beg for a day off of work to go to the DMV/local equivalent, and then he could wind up being told "No, you don't have the right documents." And of course, he could wind up having to wait for hours on end on Election Day itself.

Not everyone is as well-equipped to the modern world as you or I. That does not mean they do not deserve the right to vote. Any action which works towards removing that right needs a much stronger justification than a hand-waving "ILLEGALS".

Not everybody travels. Most don't use I-99 form. Many have never had the need for photo ID. In fact, "photo ID" is something relarively new. It cost a minimum of $50.00 for a copy of a BC. Why spend the money you may not have for something so RARELY needed? I'm over 50 and have NEVER had to show one. We now have to show a BC to renew a drivers license in OR. Never had one outside this state, but have to show it now. Another way to generate revenue. (It costs much more to renew).

Also still waiting for the links to the information on ALL THOSE ILLEGAL THAT ARE VOTING.

This entire article is misleading because they are not asking for anything that any US Citizen shouldn't already have.

No, it's not misleading. It's actually reporting facts with a small amount of - in my opinion - reasonable interpretation. You, however, are misleading and somehow making this all about you.

I don't care if no one "needed" one before etc. Poor excuse.

Actually, it's a pretty darn good excuse. Especially for the woman quoted in the article that never had one and has, apparently, never needed one ... until now.

EVERYONE should have a certified copy of their birth certificate. EVERYONE over 18 should have some form of photo ID.

I tend to agree that everyone should have these things. We should all have anything the government - in its infinite wisdom - decides we should have. But, that same government should also give EVERYONE a reasonable and inexpensive way to obtain them, which doesn't seem to be happening here. These fees should be waived, without hesitation, and the government should provide its citizens with reasonable access to the required materials.

If they can send a census form out to almost every American and track down the ones that don't return them, they can send paperwork out to everyone and mail them an ID - or send someone to their home to take their picture and verify their documentation ... and, if needed, help them to obtain the documents they need.

If the government wants it, let the government pay for it. They systems have been working remarkably well until partisan politics screwed it up by trying to shift the vote. I would love for the SCOTUS to suspend all of these laws until suitable measures are put in place to protect the rights of citizens.

There are plenty of times that one needs to show PROOF of identity other than voting. I've ALWAYS had to show my driver's license in order to vote and I've voted in 5 different states.

This may be true, but each state is different. And, DL's are the most common form of ID, some states have allowed other documentation. Just because you never had to do it doesn't mean it's not a reasonable solution. Once again, it's not just about you.

I've been asked for certified copies of my birth certificate probably 20 times or more...for Social Security, License, Passport, an I-9 form for a job, school admissions and so forth.

I have never been asked for a certified copy of my birth certificate ... and, I don't have one. I do have a small photo copy of the original that was given to my parents back in the 60's - which seemed to work fine for everything, including my entry into military service. I've had DL's in three different states and voted in three different states. A certified copy has never been requested in conjunction with employment or school. And, it doesn't seem like the lady mentioned above has had any major issues with not having one. So, the point is, everyone's experiences are different ... and the government should be giving everyone time to play catch-up to their new rules or provide processes by which ID can be obtained for every American ... whether they decide to vote or not.

Don't try and spin this like it's something new...it's not. If ppl have to pay fees to have identification that they should have in the first place... they have no one to blame but themselves.

Yes, these laws are something new. If they weren't ... none of this would be a problem now would it? And, NO, we have politicians to blame ... mostly because they are failing to create laws that serve the people vice ones that serve themselves and their partisan interests. And, we have people like you to blame, who are all too interested in placing their experiences and their ideals over those of other citizens who have just as much of a right to vote as you do.

The pretext is to keep illegals from voting because they would not possess the required documents. What is more likely to be true is that a lot of other people may not possess these documents either and they will be the poor and people of color (just the people who the sponsors would not want to see at the polls). The effect is the same as the poll tax which was easier paid by the whites than the blacks in the old South.

Well, I think y'all just about covered it. Great job, team!

I think we should take a poll--show of hands--who has been asked to show any form of ID, including voter's registration card at your polling place? Anyone? Anyone? Granted, I found it rather shocking, but I've never been asked to show even my voter's ID card at any polling place. Especially the year I voted for Pres. Obama 5 times in one day. Gheesh. That day was like an episode of the Amazing Race. If only all those dang Hispanics weren't in line ahead of me. Sigh. As an aside, how many Hispanics have you met who have actually been to Spain? ***Well, I've never been to Spain. But I've been to Chichen Itza....***

I must thank Smc for reminding me just how annoying writing in ALL CAPS is. Please, dear friends, give me the proverbial swat on the cheek (or elsewhere, depending on what moves you at the moment) if I ever write in ALL CAPS AGAIN! Oops. I feel an admonishment coming on. Poor me.

And I must apologize for being under the influence of cheap, red wine that was bought on sale, making it very cheap red wine.

Thank you, Ms. Conaway, for your patience.

The only time I ever had to show ID was the first year I ever voted (2006) when I voted in person. I was annoyed that I had to show ID so I decided to do mail-in ballots from that point on. When you do mail-in ballots you do not have to show ID and indeed as soon as you register you are sent a ballot, so you do not even have to prove your legality or residency in order to vote (this is in reference to when I lived in CO).

Smc31569

Your statement is provably false.

Exactly 0 illegal aliens have been caught voting in Wisconsin.

Some US citizens born in Illinois and Oklahoma over 65 cannot obtain a birth certificate because these were not issued for all live births until after 1945.

These people are US citizens but cannot vote under Wisconsin law if they do not drive or pay bills (i.e.: retired living with relatives or in a nursing home).

This is unethical but constitutional.

All of the people that have been caught voting illegally are convicted felons that can produce all of the items required to cast a vote in Wisconsin (just under 200 in 2010).

Apparently the new law does not prevent that.

The intent and purpose of the new "voter ID law" is to make it easier to get rid of social security and medicare.

You don't need a photo id to start a bank account. You can start a bank account online right now in about 5 minutes even w/o having any money in the account. All you have to do is know your SSN. Please refer to my above post as to why your comment is ludicrous.

In 43 years I wasn't required to show a photo id, why now? Come on, its rethuglicans trying to suppress the vote like they always do, its no more difficult than that. Make voting a hassle and the poor, the young, the old won't vote. How about we just go back to the way it was at the founding of the republic only white men of property can vote, and slaves are property.

When you use a shotgun to kill a fly the collateral damage is worse than the original problem. If you want rethuglicanism forever go along with their innocuous little changes to voting. Look at it this way the only difference between the rethuglican party and the mafia is the the rethugs use banks as weapons where the mafia used banks as targets.

Pa, They ain't hunting flies so it's not collateral damage if you hit what you're aiming for.

You really haven't been paying attention, have you? Suggest you go back and read what people have been saying, and learn what the deal is. "Vote" is in a different category than booze, cashing a check, etc. It is a right, not a choice.

Mouzer, where can you start and use a bank account without having an ID somewhere in the process?

You have to provide your SSN. I said that. You can do so online w/ most banks and you don't even have to have money in the account to begin w/. You don't need one to get a credit card either. Again you just have to fill out the paperwork and they will send you a card. As long as you know your information no ID is required. This argument- the whole you need an ID to get through life- is an irrelevant argument anyways, but I am sick of people using it as if it's true. I have many friends who have gone their entire adult life w/o having an ID. One of my closer friends- Mike- hasn't gotten a new ID since he was released from prison. He is able to rent apartments, he has a checking and savings account and a CD and an IRA, and he is able to get jobs just fine. He works for the company Swift right now as a manager. He had no problem getting that job w/o any form of ID.

As long as you know your information no ID is required.

Argh...that should be as long as you know your information an ID is not required. Bad grammar ftw!

Hmmm. Thanks, Mouzer.

You don't need one to get a credit card either.

I guess I knew this but hadn't really thought about it. Thanks, again.

Do not mistake me here in my statement: you do have to provide proof of who you are, you just don't have to do so by providing a photo ID.

eileen-4635020

Elderly have been able to prove their identity by bringing a relative when they vote.

New voter ID law prohibits that.

States like Oklahoma and Illinois did not issue birth certificates for all people until after 1945, so many people over 65 that do not drive or pay bills cannot vote, and they cannot obtain the items necessary to vote.

The new voter ID laws are actually intended to make it easier to get rid of social security and medicare.

These laws were passed in contemplation of a problem that does not exist -- voter fraud. There is no point in trying to prevent fraud that is not occurring. No law was needed and the law is actually intended to do something else like discouraging voters.

Can YOU say "old'? Or "disabled"? Or "below poverty level with no car"?

Smc doesn't believe disabled people, students, or the elderly should vote. Good to know Smc. Can you say "hates democracy?" See, this is why we don't make fallacious arguments ;-)

I see it as a way to discourage cheaters from voting in more than one place on election day. You are mad becuase you actually have to prove who you are?

Provide evidence that voter ID laws discourage "cheaters" and that voter ID laws actually help in verifying who someone is.

I also find it Ironic that so many liberals try to make this a race thing...You Liberals imply with your statements that you think blacks are poor, lazy, and don't know who they are. You Libs sound racist. I know way more lazy, poor and uneducated white people than I do black...

.....No one besides you has brought up race on this issue chem. Apparently you are the one being racist here. Especially because no one here said that it was about people being lazy...that was what Smc said and Smc is on the same side of the issue as you. If you're justifying this as a liberal versus conservative issue (of which I'm not even convinced that it is) then you're actually arguing that conservatives are the racists, not liberals....

smc31569 are you just ignorant or has your mind been so closed you refuse to open it. If you can't recognize voter suppression when it is so obvious you are either blind, ignorant, biased or a paid operative of the koch brothers. There is no voter fraud problem in the US, there is NO documentation of any kind that there has been a fraud problem in the us other than when republicans try to count votes. Smc you protest too much about being LIBERAL when every argument you make is a reactionary argument. You provide no factual basis for your opinion which is again something that right wingers tend to do regularly, and you keep repeating the same argument over and over, which again is a Fox news technique.

I should point out that I am not calling either chem or smc racists nor was I meaning for my comment to imply as much. I was merely trying to say that by using the same thought process I could come to that conclusion. This is why I always tell people to avoid fallacious arguments because they put you into a logical pretzel that you can't easily escape from (if you can escape at all). It's just a bad idea and should be avoided overall. If someone here has a legitimate statement to make regarding voter fraud and how voter ID's help I sincerely hope that you'd bring that statement forward, otherwise the conclusion here still goes back to the post Shady made earlier.

It is irrelevant whether most people have an ID or do not have an ID. It is irrelevant whether or not having an ID makes things better or worse for the individual. The argument here is that voter ID's help to reduce voter fraud, that voter fraud is a problem, and that the state government(s) must step in to enforce new laws in a way that state(s) have never had to before in order to address the issue of voter fraud. No one who is arguing the pro-voter ID law side has, as of yet, provided any evidence that suggests either of these 3 tenants exist, are adequately addressed by voter ID laws, or that the current system of checking for voter fraud is not adequate enough to address the issue. The states proposing such laws have also, as of yet, failed to provide such evidence. What this means is that the government is taking a very intrusive step to prevent a problem no one is sure either exists or exists in such a way as to render the current, non-voter ID based system mute. Because neither element are providing evidence that means that the government, as of this point in time, has not made the case for such a law. Remember that unless the government can effectively argue it's invasive rationale the operating premise should always be to err on the side of freedom (versus that of security). Since no security claim has been made, then we must err on the side of freedom (and hence why liberals are outrage by these laws).

I am sure that Smc considers her/himself a liberal, but I would have to question on what basis s/he makes that determination. Reading the comments the mind is totally closed (not generally a liberal attribute), the idea that "ALL people should have an ID" regardless of age, ability to function physically, financial status, etc. (again not generally a liberal attribute). I guess I will consider the source of the arguments to be flawed.

Mouzer, Pa and Mike - excellent rebuttals, however sad to say, an effort in futility. This person has their mind set in concrete - which makes it very hard for them to swim with the school. Too bad.

Because the Supreme Court has already ruled.

Marginally. And that's kind of the point. They are being suppressed in their efforts to vote in their own best interest. Seniors are and should be alarmed at the Ryan Plan to voucherize medicare. The insurance companies are slobbering all over themselves at the prospect. The only thing that would really stand in the way would be seniors themselves. So let's handicap them with a poll tax and hurdles they won't be able to drag their walkers over.

Not as badly as trying to get an ID. I have been able to get checks cashed (once because a client from the food shelf where I work verified that I am who I am). Beyond that, everyone was kind enough to accept my expired Nevada driver's license when I told them about the problem of my getting a state ID here. Actually "people" are much kinder than the government. I was able to get a bank account, an apartment, and a job.

The issue became critical for me when the Republicans in this state started to propose requiring an ID to vote. Gee, I thought the voter registration card was for that.

You could be an illegal alien masquarading as a senior. Javiar wearing a grama suit. You never can be too careful you know!

ROFPIP, Don. Thanks a lot.

1. That's "grama" not "grampa"

2. I might go for Marcelina, I like the sound of that.

3. My Hispanic friends go into hysterics every time I try to say "Javiar". I keep doing it wrong, which would give me away in a New York second.

4. Anyway, since we seniors are no more acceptable than people of Hispanic descent, the effort would be futile.

Love you, Don, but please leave me with my female attributes. There aren't many left in this old body, but I cherish the ones I have.

I DID say "Grama." Javiar is a very accomplished master of disguise.

Eileen, Parts of the same octopus. Who says I can't be angry about both?

Agreed, Frank. We need to be angry about both. Foreclosure fraud destroys people financially and emotionally. Poll taxes, created as a reaction to possible voter fraud, destroy our democratically inherent right to vote. I live in Vegas, which has had the highest foreclosure rate for almost five years, so I'm a bit more heated over the mortgage shenanigans that contributed to America's financial ruin. Daily, I see the empty houses, foreclosure lawn signs, and trucks hauling away family possessions.

Fraud is just another business method, practiced by the power elite in America. Laws and rules only apply if you are not white, earn less than $250,000 or have an independent brain. When your political, business, finance, religious, academic and media institutions are corrupt, incompetently led and pretty much destructive to the original purpose for which they were created its pretty understandable why fraud is the norm. Rich White Powerful Men covering up the crimes of other Rich White Powerful Men has been the History of this country since its founding.

My bro-in-law is a small businessman and would feel your pain. Surely, some things could be easier and more streamlined, especially within the first few years, when most small businesses fail.

Just a few words of advice, though:

1. You trap more flies with honey than vinegar--i.e. don't call people idiots if you want them to join you. The only living lemming was called an idiot and thus, chose not to follow and look at him--winning. Dust off your Dale Carnegie and win some friends.

2. Tit-for-tat is also bad for trying to get people on your side.

3. Voting is a right and applies to students, teachers, cops, firefighters, nurses, doctors, lawyers, businessman, scientists, artists, bloggers, readers, writers, actors, deadbeats (in one's opinion), county clerks, the unemployed, retirees, nuns, spouses of retirees (who, by the way, may have lived their lives married to the same bread winner and will undoubtedly be without a driver's license or other photo ID and would be up a crick without a paddle at the age of 75, like the mother of yours truly, if they lived in WI), etc, etc, etc. Not everyone is a business person, nor should everyone be one. Apples and oranges.

Dismantle the bureaucracy ... okay ... what does it become then? Tag lines are fine, but they don't really solve anything. Neither does slash-and-burn politics. While there is certainly a percentage of the bureaucracy that should be eliminated, there is likely a decent percentage that we also need to prosper as a nation. I haven't seen anything substantial from the Tea Party other than extreme politics. Instead of chanting slogans and putting a brick wall up, why can't they (and you) show us and tell us what you think is going to make it right?

Steve D- You convinced me when you called me an idiot. I'm sure to rally to your side now. If your goal is to get your point across and be heard, or to change hearts or minds, you can't engage in name-calling. The moment you do the person on the receiving end ceases to take you seriously and either hits delete or stops reading. Now I can't speak for everyone, but if I've gotten under someone's skin to the extent that the only retort he can come up with involves calling me a name, I feel pretty confident that I've done my job for the day.

Exactly. You need ID to drive, obtain alcohold,cigarettes, OTC ephedrine, food stamps, passpor, etc.. You need two forms of ID to donate plasma. How come liberals aren't crying discrimination at the plasma donor sites?

My suggestion is that you actually read the comments instead of skipping all the way down to the bottom and adding your (repetitive) two cents. Your concern has been addressed repeatedly by other bloggers and myself. At this point you are just (quite honestly rudely) parroting a complaint w/o active blog participation. Rather than regurgitate arguments I- and others- have already provided I will merely ask of you these two simply inqueries:

1- Provide evidence that voter fraud exists in such a way that the current system cannot adequately address it (thus prompting the need for these new regulatory changes)

2- Provide evidence that these new laws adequately address the issue of number 1

ah contessa the wacky wunderkind is back.....If you have time to type up an angry paragraph to someone, then you have time to read the piece you think you are angry about in its entirety. If you do not, then you are exactly like those people who don't bother to vote then sit around complaining our ears off until the next election. I have lost count of how many times people have sent me emails, tweeted or left comments all over the web criticizing a post I wrote for not addressing a specific point -- only that point could easily be found in paragraph two of my post, if only they'd bothered to read that far.

I know it's hard to do in the heat of the moment but when you go to write a letter, comment or tweet, I encourage you to take thirty seconds to ask yourself what you are seeking to accomplish with your words. If your sole goal is to vent, then by all means have at it. Say what you have to say, knowing that it will be permanently out there, somewhere, on the record. That means a potential employer may see it or your friends.

Just trying to be helpful contessa, you might find a little more sympathy for your perspective if you kept some of these ideas in mind.

Documentation please? I'm sure you and Scott Walker have it right? BTW we are still waiting for you to document some of your other accusations. You do well at accusing but not to well at proving the accusations. That my dear is called persecution.

contessa, do you have any idea of how foolish you make yourself look with your unfounded accusations. I realize it is the only trick you have, but it is getting old. Try changing you nickname if you can't come up with more original accusations and a little information to back them up, because you are becoming identified as a know nothing radical right winger who just likes to troll liberal or progressive sites and throw out absurd bombs to try to get a rise out of the dirty liberals. You've been figured out for what you are contessa, a pretender without moral values other than the pursuit of your own selfish greed.

1- Provide evidence that voter fraud exists in such a way that the current system cannot adequately address it (thus prompting the need for these new regulatory changes)

2- Provide evidence that these new laws adequately address the issue of number 1