When you talk about government overreach, sometimes the effect matters more than the intent. Consider Michigan, for instance, where the new emergency manager law has put more than half the African-American population is at risk of having no meaningful local democracy. You can't say that Republicans wanted that law so they could disenfranchise those voters. You can say that's becoming the effect of the law.
Likewise, in Wisconsin, a new law that requires you to show photo ID at the polls is having the effect of disenfranchising the poor, minorities, students and seniors like Ruthelle Frank. It almost doesn't matter whether Wisconsin Republicans intended to do that. The effect is what counts.
And consider this, too: One of the last unsettled questions in Wisconsin is which types of student IDs will be acceptable at the polls. Wisconsin Republicans wanted to block student IDs from technical colleges -- meaning, in effect, the students from less fancy backgrounds. You might expect those students, incidentally or not, to lean Democratic.
The ACLU sued Wisconsin yesterday in federal court over the new law that makes voting harder. The group's filing notes that Governor Scott Walker could still reject the provision that allows for technical college IDs. Check out the numbers the ACLU presents (pdf):
There were 382,006 students enrolled in the technical college system in the 2009-2010 academic year, which constitutes 8.8% of Wisconsin's total voting-age population. Of these technical college students, 59,323 were minority students. By sharp contrast, there were only 18,000 minority students in the entire University of Wisconsin ("UW") System in the same academic year. Indeed, there were more minority students (20,916) at Milwaukee Area Technical College alone than in the entire UW System.
Emphasis mine. In arguing against allowing technical college IDs, were Wisconsin Republicans trying to keep the minority vote down in places like Milwaukee? That's a real question, but the real answer is that the new voter ID could do exactly that -- and it's the curbing of rights that matters.
Leave a Comment:
Rachel, at some point you have to start thinking for yourself. Anyone with half a brain knows a hundred year old woman probably doesn't have a birth certificate and everything in the world should be done for her to give her what she needs to vote, as well as everyone else in that type of situation.
But you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. This is the 21st century, and everyone should have a photo id. I cannot cash a check without one and neither can you. There have people march for the right to vote, there have been people die for the right to vote. Just to sign onto your blog, I had to jump through 20 hoops.
So, at some point in the 21st century, don't you think if people have died in our history in order to vote, it wouldn't be too much to ask that they get off their asses and get a legitimate FREE photo ID? Is that really too much to ask when we all know fraud happens. So, instead of reporting one isolated issue which could easily be remedied, you overlook what could be massive volumes of voter fraud. I would walk through a snowstorm to vote, but you would allow that vote to be overridden with fake votes. Shame on YOU! Just remember what our ancestors went through JUST TO VOTE, AND THEN TELL ME IT IS TOO MUCH TO GET A PHOTO ID.
The issue here is that it's not a free ID, and it's unreasonable that suddenly the state government is requiring a piece of document that has previously been required. I do think that everyone should get an ID, however, I do not think that one (especially senior citizens or the disabled) should have to jump through so many hoops and pay so many fees in order to attain that identification.
I do believe, sincerely, that the law itself is merely a means; their ultimate goal is to keep seniors and minorities/disenfranchised at home on election day. It's clear. You just have to ask yourself: Would a democrat put this kind of law in place? Is it *truly* incidental that only Republican state gov'ts are requiring this new form of ID?
You're absolutely correct! She should just have one of her relatives take her to get an ID! After all, EVERYONE has relatives! Right? What? Some people don't have relatives? Oh. Well, she should just take the bus! Everyone has access to public transportation! What? Due to health factors, handicaps, location of residence, physical mobility, etc, not everyone has access to public transportation? Oh. Well, she should figure out a way to get her 100 year-old butt to the DMV and wait in line like the rest of us anyway! Freedom isn't free!!!
Please, please show me the "massive volumes of voter fraud" in wisconsin. Please do that for me, and I will concede all points to you.
In fact, voter fraud in Wisconsin is LESS likely than having trouble getting a photo ID so far. And all incidents of voter fraud in the last year in wisconsin were commited by people who could have valid photo IDs. Tell me how this will stop that.
Where does your argument end? We shouldn't have to Just do anything to be able to vote.
and at some point in the 21st century everyone should have had a hoverboard too...
so if its fraud and voter id problems, why stop using collage ids? after all when you think about it they the students are paying for that ID in fees.
...if it's fraud, use a SSN. Then you can cross reference the number with the name. Everyone already has one of those, right?
First of all, it's been ages - years - since I've been asked to show a photo ID to write a check. In fact, even when I use a bank card I rarely if ever get asked to show an ID of any kind, let alone a photo ID. To say their use is rampant is an overstatement, just as is saying voter fraud is big problem.
Registering for a site like this requires no photo ID. It does require an e-mail address, which is as simple and FREE (yes, the real kind of free, the kind that doesn't require any kind of charge) as signing up for Google's gmail or Yahoo mail or Microsoft's Hotmail. No photo I.D. required, no drive to the DMV, no birth certificate, no fingerprints.
Maybe if you "got off your ass" and checked your facts you'd have known this before you went on your diatribe, DidHeReallySayThat.
Requiring a photo ID to vote is a ridiculous intrusion. It's hard enough to get citizens to participate in elections, and this is one more way to keep them away from the polls. The only "voter fraud" is the one where politicians complain about it and then use that as evidence of actual voter fraud, even though the complaints have never been proved, validated, or substantiated. It's plain fraud in itself.
I don't need a photo Id to cash my check at my bank-in Texas they won't accept student's ID but will accept NRA ID--so tell me this isn't discriminatory--
I honestly was not expecting the "Won't Somebody Please Think of the Ancestors!" argument. Nicely played.
I need to show photo ID to cash a check? Somebody better tell my credit union they're doing it wrong.
Oh, good grief! Don't know where you can get a free photo i.d.
I am old enough to remember having to pass the reading test - By 1960, that was an odd mix of word photo-copied from the middle of a page. It made no sense. But it was probably better than having to interpret the Constitution. I never met a white male who failed the Constitutional questions.
in the l930's and 40's,Virginia Durr fought to abolish the poll tax in Virginia She was called before the Dies committee (House Un-American activities Ctte) as a result. Her argument was, in part, that the women should not have to ask their husbands for the money.
Later she ran for the US Senate on the Progressive ticket, Henry Wallace who had been Roosevelt's Secretary of Agriculture and Vice President ran for President. I believe she was defeated by Pat Robertson's father.
Durr's husband was Clifford Durr - chairman of the Federal Communications Committee under Roosevelt. He believed that the airways belonged to the people. Could not find a job after leaving office. Supported Civil Rights in Alabama. Studs Turkle wrote the introduction to Virginia Durr's biography, "Outside the Magic Circle."
Oh we're repeating posts now? K then ignore the one on the other page and answer it here since this is the more advanced part of the discussion:
What the hell are you talking about? I get paid through PayPal and I directly deposit those payments into my checking account. I started my checking and savings account online and I got my credit and debit card through the bank online. I never once was asked to provide a photo I.D. in any of these cases. Beyond this if I did, for some reason, need to cash a check and I didn't have an I.D. all I would do is go to WalMart and ask them to cash the check for me. They do not require an I.D. Do not make silly claims in order to deride what you perceive to be silly claims. Le sighs.
Secondly it is irrelevant whether or not most people have an I.D. or whether or not you need an I.D. to cash a check. Neither of these arguments are addressing the subject at hand- you are instead shifting the subject matter in an attempt to argue what you see to be the easier to defend position. This is just bad form and makes your logic suspect.
Thirdly we already have in place the voter registration system which attempts to correct the issue of voter fraud. No one here is arguing that voter fraud is a good thing or that voter fraud should happen. What liberals are arguing is that you (being that this is your argument) must provide evidence for 3 contentions before you can justify implementing these laws and subsequently inconveniencing people to be subjected to those laws:
1) Proof that voter fraud happens
2) Proof that the current system (the voter registration system) is not adequate enough to correct for the problem of voter fraud
3) Proof that the voter I.D. system will correct the problems of number 2 in order to address the problems of number 1. Remember that the I.D. law is an amendment to the already existent voter registration law.
If you cannot prove all 3 contentions you cannot logically argue a justification for voter I.D. laws and you are therefore hindering the vote from people who would otherwise be eligible. You cannot constitutionally, ethically, or legally prevent people from voting or charge them money to vote unless you can meet all 3 of the aforementioned criteria.
Federal money was recently used in Ohio to set up DUI check points. Somebody with some sense needs to take that waste of money and infringement and funnel it to a grant to get ID cards to elderly, minorities or uninformed.
Are you being sarcastic Eric!?
Not even a little....why?
So you think money would be better spent helping people get ID's than on setting up DUI checkpoints? I am not sure I am getting your argument?
DidHeReallySayThat:
Somehow, I think that people are missing the real point! The point is in the past decade of election cycles exactly how many cases of "voter fraud" have really occurred - where people were prosecuted and went to jail?!? I'm willing to bet that the number probably amounts to something like 0.002% (just guessing)! So what this really does look like is that rethugnikans are out to disenfranchise: the poor, minorities, students, the elderly - basically anyone that they believe will "vote democratic"!!
The fact is that because there is an African-American in the Presidency - the sheeple have lost their minds!! Let US all stop pretending that we are NOW loving in a post-racial society - it ain't happening, let's just admit it and frankly I'm sorry to say it - but it must be said!! This President, inherited more disfunction, dis-union, and fragga-nackle bs than any other President (maybe FDR) - he's been disrespected more times than I can count, and yes he was just a bit too conciliatory throwing out the olive branch to a bunch of selfish, ignorant, blowhards, that I truly believe are traitors not just to their nation but to their constituents (constituents that have been dumbed down)!!
In 2010 most states went and voted in rethugnikans!! Why, because they ran on obfuscations and mendacity - well hey, WHERE ARE THOSE D--M JOBS!?!?!? Now because the GOP is bereft of any real IDEAS for the problems that WE FACE AS A NATION, their answer is to "win the Presidency and STATE elections by FRAUD"!!
As a nation we've lost our sense of "the commons, society, and understanding compromise" - to our own detriment!! We've lost our "LONG TERM VISION" for everything that doesn't make US a quick buck!! Some will argue that it's NOT discrimination at work behind those laws, but the outcome, the effect of those laws on the population as a whole is what leads people to believe that the myopic, short term vision of the people that crafted these laws - was fueled by racism because the "affect" is the same!!
I saw the .002% number from Wisconsin I believe, where it is illegal to vote if you are incarcerated, on parole, or on probation.
People with felony convictions may vote upon completion of all supervised release.
The incidents of voter fraud occurred only within this demographic in WI last year. They all qualify for Photo ID's. There is nothing stopping one of these individuals with a Photo ID to go to the polls and cast a ballot, it has to be discovered after the fact. This law, would do absolutely Nothing to prevent these pre-existing cases from having happened.
I think DUI check points are a waste...and if we are going to have new requirements for voting, take money from a wasteful program and put it to get everyone up to speed.
I love DUI check points, I prefer to live as a cyclist on the road, and not be struck by someone in a car who is too intoxicated to notice a bicycle with blinking lights.
Do you have trouble passing those checkpoints Eric?
So, should you be able to be stopped without cause and submit to test just because you are using the road? How do we justify stopping 99 drivers to catch 1 or 2? Plant the cars near the bars and call it a day.
Er while bars certainly contribute to the use of alcohol they are not the only location. By that logic you'd have to plant cops by the grocery store, all liquor stores, all wineries, all restaurants, all gas stations, all convenience stores, and all pharmacy shops like Walgreens, all universities and colleges, all bowling alleys, and of course everyone's home since that's where a significant amount of intoxication comes from (and subsequent driving). Although I will grant you that there certainly is a social libertarian argument to be made regarding the ethics of making people submit to screenings w/o prompt (SCOTUS has ruled that this is not a violation of the 4th Amendment, but you can still argue that it is). I personally do not mind checkpoints as they usually don't make you stop entirely, but instead just slow you down and talk to you for a few seconds and then waive you through. However that has more to do w/ personal tolerance and does not necessarily address it on an ethical or moral level. I guess I am just not seeing the rationale behind cutting one program to fund another.
SO what are your thoughts on the AZ immigration law?
They're different issues. If you could test my citizenship by looking at me and asking me two questions, I'd be far more okay with it. The fact that I have to provide you tangible proof, irritates me.
That, also, is more of a racial profile than drunk driving is.
If I were slowing down enough for a police officer to say "are you a citizen" and I were to say "yes" and they'd let me through, fine. That's not how that works, nor will it ever. It's a racially charged issue, that opens itself up to corruption and profiling.
you overlook what could be massive volumes of voter fraud.
Care to show those numbers on the volumes of voter fraud?
but you would allow that vote to be overridden with fake votes
Also do you have knowledge of fake votes? have you gone to any officials exposing this fraud and fake voters?
thanks
Yes, I have. There is almost no falsified voting that wasn't done by officials who used to regularly stuff the ballot box with votes by dead people.
@Pilotshark: the argument he/she is making is an appeal to ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
He/she is arguing that you cannot disprove that there could be rampant fraud, therefore we must assume that rampant fraud exists.
The Mouzer,
smiling
Awww I see now, thanks
@Pilotshark: it's sort've like saying "Well you can't disprove that my imaginary friend Jimmy is here, therefore you must believe he is!" It's just very bad form. I call it the phantom fallacy or the conspiracy fallacy. So in otherwords: just because you're crazy doesn't mean they're not out to get you ;-)
the down side is that because this is implemented, they will claim credit for anything that happens with the rate of voter fraud. If it goes down, they'll say it's because of the ID bill, if it goes up, they'll say it was there all along and now it's exposed because of the ID bill, if it stays the same, they'll say it hasn't gone up because of the ID bill... It's a losing battle...
Ludwigtr that's the point. Instead of it being a loaded question it's a loaded policy position. Any such change can then be used as rationale for the effectiveness of the bill. It's sort've like how groups will use anything gays do as justification for why being gay is wrong. If a gay person is happy then it's only because he/she is delusional and this is why homosexuality should be seen as a mental illness. If she/she is depressed this is because homosexuality is a sin and he/she is suffering from the punishment of God. Here is one of my favorite videos on the idea of double-standards, although this time as it applies to atheists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpz8PMcRJSY
right, because it's IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a fake ID :|
Frank,
Wis lady did not start voting until she was 21 : 84-21 not 66 years; 63 or 64 years is all!
Voter fraud simply does not exist. It's the excuse Republicans used to justify disenfranchising voters. The number of cases of voter fraud actually taken up by the Justice Department pales in comparison to the number of voters (in Wisconsin alone!) disenfranchised by these completely unnecessary laws. In Maine, my home state, the number of voter fraud cases in the last 40 years can be counted on one hand. Do we really want to live in a country where the poor and the elderly are denied their constitutional right to vote? How can we call our elections democratic?
HA! Not that ID's would have helped, but a local Democrat here took a bus full of voter age school kids to the polls and gave them Ice cream afterward, sorry it exists.
Actually Eric that's not voter fraud that is voter bribery. The two are prosecuted entirely different, but the net effect can sometimes be the same (the ballots being thrown away). It depends on whether or not it can be proven that the gift given to the voter was done in order to curry a specific vote or if it was given to reward the person for voting in general. If it is the former then it's bribery; if it is the latter then it is legal. Additionally it is not illegal to give someone a gift for voting (regardless of the motive) if that gift is valued at less than 1$ per person. Voter bribery is considered to be, and subsequently prosecuted as, a motivational crime. Unless you could provide more information I would not know whether or not your case is an example of bribery or not. If those children were simply given ice cream for the act of voting that would not be qualified as bribery. If, however, they were given ice cream for voting for a specific candidate that would be considered bribery.
so wheres here? and who was the Democrat? and did all of them vote for him?
do you have any tangible proof?
Ack sorry! Should read:
Remember that just because the person was a registered Democrat or a Democratic volunteer does not necessarily mean that it was bribery.
http://communitypress.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20101025/NEWS0102/310250038/Discipline-possible-vote-outing?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Local%20news|s
OK do you have a link to the updated information? This sounds like the school was disciplining the students for being taken to an event w/ campaign sponsors and the one person in association was a teacher. It also said that these were not official ballots. I am not sure what this proves. Do you have a link to the actual court case or to any updated information about it? This case is a little over a year old it should have some new info?
All I can find are more articles relating to the 2010 accusation of fraud, but I do not see anything that updates the case. Since it's a year out it may still be in the courts so this may not necessarily be surprising, but I can't seem to find even updates on the matter. This is important because if the case has been resolved we need to know the outcome in order to accurately determine what happened.
Soooo....they're actually upset that they took the wrong size van... Not that it had anything to do with voting, because it didn't. I fail to see your point, unless, of course, your point is that you are outraged that adults are trying to get younger students involved in the democratic process by showing them what a sample ballot is like and where the polling locations are...?
If you are ONLY giving sample of one party or the other and only one party representatives, yeah I have a problem with that.
I haven't found out anything from it either, Driihaus got beat bad, so it may have been dropped.
It's interesting how the Republican Party is using the ID for voting law to stop voter fraud. When in fact there was very little to none prior to these new ID laws. I think the Republican's voter ID law is the true voter fraud. They are fraudulently passing laws that there is no merit on just to stop voters and there votes. To me that's fraud.
They know it's a catch 22 though.
They instate ID bill, and there continues to be no fraud, they get to say "look, it worked"
They instate ID bill, and there is an increase in fraud, they get to say "look, it was happening all along and now we can stop it"
There's no winning with the conservativ... i mean the sociopath party.
(The following is intended to read in a mixture of sarcasm, irony and scorn.)
I think Republicans will continue to allege voter fraud until the day comes when no one but Republicans can win elections. When we have a reliably single-party system, the GOP being that party, then we will be free of voter fraud.
MM
Although I somewhat agree with you, considering the contentiousness of the current primary field Republicans there may yet be accusations of voter fraud even with a one party Republican voting system. (Whoa! How's that for a running sentence!)
This is un-American. Republicans are closing down voting booths and threatening folks that have the temerity to want to take part in their constitutional right to cast a ballot out of fear. The right is deathly afraid of the 99 percent of ordinary, poor and middle-class Americans that are fed up with the loopholes and benefits for the wealthy, fed up with a political party devoted to destroying the American Dream so Corporate America can send our jobs to China and make a fat profit. Investigate and prosecute...
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The repulicans are trying to take this country back to the colonal days when only land owners could vote,and if possible they would put a clause in to eliminate anyone who owns a mortaged property,that would limit voters to the 1%and then they would be happy, then there would be laws that would assign you to a certain religious group if you didnt go to church you would be locked up, then they would be estatic!
For this issue to have any merit, it should be a bi-partisan effort to curb voter fraud. The Dems are not pursuing this because it isn't an issue. When one party proposes changes to how/who can vote, a huge red flag should emerge. Bad move by the right...look at Russia for goodness sakes!
Attorney General needs to step up and protect our constitutional right to vote!(for free) President Obama needs to pound his fist on the podium for this one...it's disgusting
I live in rural Wisconsin and never had an "official" ID until I was 21 because I didn't drive. I had a University of Wisconsin ID, but didn't need a state ID until I wanted to drink in a bar or buy alcohol at a liquor store. I held jobs throughout high school, college, and post college graduation and was never asked for proof that I was who I said I was. I voted (for Clinton) in my first presidential election using a utility bill. The single reason I've ever needed my license was to buy alcohol and when I got pulled over for a traffic violation. Plain and simple: life in rural Wisconsin does not require possessing an ID. Come visit me, and I will prove it to you.
People died for the right to vote. We should not have to keep doing it.
BTW: Ms Frank really does need an ID. I believe she is an actress who has been working steady ever since she appeared on West Wing.
I suspect you're thinking of Kathryn Joosten.
I know they are different people and I love both of them.
They are the restrictive right...voting rights, women's rights, welfare recipients rights, the party of limited government wants to add another layer of government control by making it illegal and a crime to have an abortion, they want to fill the private prisons with women who dare to have one, to make it illegal to vote without a photo id, They have already brought up the prospect of limiting voting to property owners, and by drug testing welfare recipients who don't have money for drugs, guess what folks, we are paying an inflated price for that drug testing, and it's already proven to be a costly disaster in Florida....the repub beat goes on...how can we stop it...we can still vote!!
Since the Republicans want to suppress the vote, then it would be incumbent upon the Dems to get people to register to vote by making sure they have the proper ID's, and if they don't have the ID's, help them obtain the proper ID's. It is not enough to challenge the law and gamble with a court system. You have to beat the Republicans at their own game. This would be very simple by using ads, groups like the League of Women voters, door to door canvassing, etc. It would be a big effort, but well worth the time and expense. In fact, it could be done when the recall election is set because Dems need to go out and canvass the neighborhoods for potential voters. The Dem party has precinct captains that can get the process underway and the state party can send in people to help.
Ding ding ding!
What amazes me is that Republican politicians aren't catching on to the fact that they are pi**ing off a lot of Americans, who are now taking action to stop the Republican madness. Bullies are so short-sighted and full of themselves.
Dems need to enlist Dem election judges and observers in every precinct in the state. Republicans are going to get election judges and observers into Milwaukee and other areas where Dems turn out in large numbers to challenge voters so the Dems have to do the same to the Republicans. The recall election is presenting an opportunity for Dems who are going to have a lot of help from unions to insure that voters are not denied the right to vote.
Based on the comments here and in previous discussions on this topic, it seems that in reality Republican voters tend to have IDs and Democratic voters don't (in decent numbers at least). I just find that interesting :)
Having a photo ID is not needed much anymore for things like check cashing and credit card purchases (booze and cigarettes still though), but I do not leave the house without one. If nothing else, it would be nice to have so people could "identify" you if you were unconscious or worse. I just feel a little "naked" without one. I would be curious on how many here at this site/blog have a photo ID.
A driver's license is necessary if you drive. Many people do not.
A photo ID is necessary to apply for a mortgage. Many people do not own a home.
A photo ID is required for air travel. Many people do not fly.
A photo ID is required to open a checking account. Many people do not have one.
I have had a driver's license for 33 years. The last time I was required to present it was 1998.
Many retailers have "photo ID required" procedures (cash refunds, etc.) companies require, but the truth is none hold up legally so if a customer insists they are overridden by management.
There are many people who don't have the kind of ID being required by these new laws. Most of them are unlikely to be posting on a blog like this. They are unlikely to have cable TV or internet service in their homes.
They are, however, citizens.
Great points Progressive - and I don't disagree. My points still stand. Most Republican voters seem to have IDs and a good number of Democratic voters do not. And it is probably because of the reasons you stated above. It is still interesting to me though. And personally I do not think I can go without a photo ID - if only for emergencies. Since I joined the Navy at 17 I never entertained the thought of NOT having a photo ID, and to be honest I thought (and still think I guess) that an adult in today's world not having a photo ID as an exception and not the rule. Even if you don't drive or own a home - I just don't understand why you would not want a tangible indentification device.
And I will take you as a "yes" to my question about people at this site having photo IDs or not. By the way, I am 54 and I still have to present it sometimes for liquor. And there is NO way I look underage :).
Many people can vote to raise property taxes, but do not own property.
In both instances we are talking about minority cases. Liberals are worried about a minority portion of the population who would be w/o an ID and therefore be denied the right to vote. Conservatives are worried about the integrity of the vote and specifically non-citizen voting, which statistically represents less than half of a percent of any given election. In both cases these are rare instances that are certainly exceptions to the norm. However this does not diminish the worries of either camp. Non-citizens do sometimes cast ballots in US elections and 1 fraudulent vote is still a fraudulent vote. Likewise there are people who have gotten through life w/o having to have a photo ID (although they do have other forms of identification, I should add). I have a close friend named Mike who has gotten through his entire life since leaving prison w/o getting a photo ID. He has no problems getting jobs (in fact he has a job now and is in fact a manager at that job), or finding apartments to rent, or keeping a checking account and the like. He just simply doesn't need an ID. To be fair, Mike also does not vote, but the point still stands it does happen even if it's a minority case (as is the same w/ non-citizens voting).
We know that it will cost money to cover those who do not have an ID and who need to get the necessary documentation, but we do not know what this cost will be. Does anyone have a cost-to-benefit analysis? I have looked one up for Wisconsin and I have not found one. I have found people making statements that the benefit outweighs the cost, but I would classify these statements as falling under nospeak since the person saying as much does not provide evidence and uses a great deal of surface logic (or what others might call "common sense" logic).
We also do not know how voter I.D. laws will make the already rare instances of voter fraud less likely to occur. This is an empirically knowable thing (not a hypothetical) and yet no one seems to be able to provide any evidence (nor can I find any on my own) that voter I.D. laws will reduce the likelihood of voter fraud. Now if there were no anti-fraud laws in effect or if voter fraud were something like 50% then I could potentially see how this would help to reduce it. But since there are anti-fraud laws in effect already (and the voter I.D. laws would merely be added to the already existent law) and since voter fraud is already below a half of a percent in likelihood I am highly, highly skeptical as to how this is suddenly going to make the problem less likely.
There also seems to be no evidence showing that the current system of anti-fraud laws doesn't work well enough to counter the problem. Every case I have looked up and read about on conservative websites touting this idea has been a case in which the current system adequately addressed the issue and corrected for the problem. So now I am skeptical that voter I.D. laws will even work well enough to reduce the numbers more than what they already are and I'm skeptical that such a law even needs to be presented because the current system seems to work.
In my mind if I am assuming that this law will inconvenience a significant amount of the population, the implementation of such a law will cost money that the state doesn't necessarily have, the current system in place to counter voter fraud is working adequately, and voter I.D. laws will not demonstrably help reduce what fraud exists then I cannot see any rationale behind implementation. So to me this is an invasive proposal that has no logical or factual basis and because of that I conclude it's for partisan gain.
Now why did I bother giving this whole long ass post (aside from that I generally enjoy reading my own posts because I'm an arrogant ass ;-))? Because you had made the assertion that most Republicans have I.D.'s and most Democrats do not. This is not the case. Democrats are coming from a position of logic (at least this time around) and are not seeing a basis for such a law. The fact that we talk about it in terms of defending those who are more disenfranchised is far more of an appeal to emotion than it is anything else, since most Democrats assume this is a battle about politics rather than necessity (I explained why above).
I do agree that we should all have an ID if we can and I personally have a driver's license that I carry w/ me at all times (and I had to go through hell and spend hundreds of dollars to get one, so I totally feel this woman's pain). I too feel pretty weird going outside of my home w/o an ID unless it's to one of the shops that I happen to live above in my apartment complex. It just doesn't feel right.
Oh and PS- I am quite sure you get carded at the liquor store cause you're a handsome, young looking man. Don't be so hard on yourself Skip!
Nice reply Mouzer - very interesting. And you may be right about Republicans and Democrats being about the same when it comes to possession of a photo ID. I make that assertion only because a majority of people here today and (in previous articles at this site) as well as a lot of Democratic politicians/activists always bring up their fear that it will affect Democratic candidates/voters much, much more. I have never seen or heard anyone complain that Republicans will lose votes over this. Thus, my assertion.
Oh and thank you for the compliment! I wish is was true :-).
That latter element- that you hear more concerns regarding potential Democratic voters- I think has more to do w/ the overall bias of the bloggers here. I think people see this as Republicans specifically targeting Democrats because there is no other solid logic behind the desire to pass such a bill. Thus the Democratic instinct is to protect their own from what is a perceived threat.
As I have stated before this isn't a political or partisan issue for me. Even if giving out more votes meant Democrats would lose more elections I would still want everyone to be able to vote. This is because, for me at least, I see it as a problem that people don't take politics seriously and don't participate in the system. We have low voter turnout consistently especially in my age group (that infuriates me even more considering that we're the ones who get sent to war, yet I can't tell you how many times I hear people my age saying they have no idea how politics affects them). I believe the last time I talked about my personal stance on this I quoted Starship Troopers (the movie). When Lt. Razschack is talking to his class he says something to the effect that when you vote you are exercising force and force is a form of violence. Therefore everyone who participates in using that violence must be held to a higher standard. Now Heinlein (the author of SST) was using this to justify a fascist-meritocracy type society that would operate like a hybrid of independent businesses and a dictatorship. But taking the same logic you can still apply it to a democratic-republic, only in this latter case everyone has the ability to vote and therefore voting should be held as something sacred. You should care more about your vote than anything else in the world because all other rights you gain as a citizen come from your vote. W/o your vote you are nothing and the idea that some of us willingly give up our vote to politicians or to apathy is beyond my ability to comprehend (although I don't necessarily mean this to apply to people who literally are too disenfranchised to vote- I have been borderline homeless before so I don't begrudge people who're struggling just to find food everyday...this, however, doesn't represent the majority who decide not to vote).
It's not an all or nothing deal, but passports and certain documents seem to be distributed in proportion to wealth or income.
Rachael, Are you aware that in Tennessee the new law requiring photo ID is only for voting IN PERSON? I vote absentee from Canada and just called to find out what I have to do to keep up my registration and that is what I was told. Is that crazy or what?
What's next, full body scanners and surveillance cameras in the voting booth? Why are American voters being treated like felons? We just want to peacefully and intelligently practice our democratic right to vote.
Here's an interesting read if you are interested: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/truthaboutvoterfraud/
Voting is important. If a person needs help securing a photo ID, registering to vote, studying the issues and candidates then get to the polls, Help them! If they won't make the effort why should we trust their ability to make an informed decision? This is another fight for the sake of fighting like Creation vs Evolution. Creation is a work in progress, it's constantly evolving. Where's the fight?
Quit trotting out that old lady who was born at home or the recluse who people forgot. For a very long time there have been several avenues for people like that to secure verification of existance. I do not like that I have to have photo ID in Nevada but I do. Showing one when I vote would be no biggie. The DMV will issue you one (for a fee) if you do not have a driver's license. My 89 year old mother had a DMV ID, a voters registration card, a Social Security Card, a Medicare Card, a library card and a bus pass.
Tightening up registration might be a better idea. Give the Registrar of Voters a couple of weeks between registering and voting to verify the person. Absentee ballots should not be fly by night and one week instead one three for early voting. Students should not be excused from making the effort required to vote. Requiring people to show that they actually give a flying fig about voting is not unreasonable. The position that minorities are too feckless to do what is necessary to vote is about as racist and low as you can go.
I am a progressive/conservative registered Dem. I want people voting who actually exibite a modicum of giving a s**t enough to get their act together by either doing for themselves or have the gumption to ask for help. Preferrably before the polls open. The only people who won't be able to vote are the ones who don't care.
All I have to say little friends, is be careful what you wish for. Good luck with that thought pattern though, I've seen it turn tides many times. You may not always like the narrow results that you will always see.
The real voter fraud is electronic machines with bungled software and no paper trail. The real issue with these new laws is they make it impossible for good intentioned people to have registration drives. Republicans despise voter registration drives as their phony ACORN crap proved. By the way republican voter drives tossed out democrat forms! Talk about fraud.