[subego]

One of the referendums which did pass in Mississippi was one requiring you to need a state ID to vote (IIUC).

Off the cuff, I'm not particularly happy with this, but I'm open to discussion.

[Athens]

honestly I think finger prints would be the best method now that we have biometrics.

[Shaddim]

I would think some type of state ID or DL. We have a specific voter ID card we have to show.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I would think some type of state ID or DL. We have a specific voter ID card we have to show.

Yup. You cannot function in society without some form of identification. If you've put any thought or diligence at all behind your vote, you'll have an ID to establish that you are who you say you are.

[subego]

That wouldn't bother me if they were free.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Go to your local party headquarters and tell them you can't vote because your to poor to afford state id. I certainly don't want to underwrite your id or anyone else. Especially when the mapping of fee to service is so obvious.

[olePigeon]

California residents are encouraged to get a state ID. Anyone can get one. It looks nearly identical to a driver's license. The nifty part is that after you get an ID and when you're old enough to get a driver's license, it keeps the same ID number. Nothing new to learn.

I don't see a problem with requiring the ID to vote, but then you're run into issues with people who can't afford the $23 application fee. You can expect a new tax to cover that.

[Buckaroo]

We need to increase the fine of over $100,000 and minimum 90 days jail time for anyone found guilty of intentionally illegal voting. All votes should be tracked and all illegal votes should be stricken from the tally and the outcome should be changed to reflect the new tally.

[andi*pandi]

Some kind of state ID/DL is fine with me. Maybe birth certificate if you can't afford an ID? You should be able to prove you are a citizen. That said, when I voted yesterday I didn't have to show it.

[turtle777]

Just use your Kenyan birth certificate.

-t

[Doofy]

What Identification Should You Need To Register To Vote?

A passport with a stamp from each continent in it.

[Big Mac]

A US birth certificate or state ID.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

That wouldn't bother me if they were free.

Our voter ID card is free, you just need your birth certificate or state ID to get one.

Edit: oh, and you need to show your current address, usually some type of utility bill.

[The Final Dakar]

I think the best compromise would be requiring ID to vote, charging nothing for it, and implementing it with same day voter registration (with the ability to gain said ID with the appropriate paper-work same day).

That way, no one can make accusations of trying to discourage voting.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Here in NH its $10 for the ID card. Go without beer for a week and get one, preferably the week of the election.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Here in NH its $10 for the ID card. Go without beer for a week and get one, preferably the week of the election.

Are you saying I have to be sober when I vote? You're crazy.

[The Final Dakar]

You'd have to be drunk to vote for these crooks! [/Leno]

[OAW]

This is one of those requirements that seems quite reasonable on the surface. Perhaps even innocuous. But when you delve into the numbers a different picture emerges.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law ... a non-partisan public policy and law
institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice ... has been involved with this issue for some time now. The following are the key findings from a policy brief that it published in 2006 as a result of research, analysis, and amicus briefs it has filed in various courts hearing such cases:

* Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
* Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
* Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
* Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
* Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.

Some key excerpts .....

Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.

Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves. Even for the few who view voting merely as a means to an end, however, voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but yields at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible. Indeed, evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.

Voter fraud is most often invoked as a substantial problem in order to justify particular election policies. Chief among these is the proposal that individuals be required to show photo ID in order to vote - a policy that disenfranchises up to 10% of eligible citizens. But the only misconduct that photo ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as death by lightning. Therefore, it suits those who prefer photo ID as a policy to lump as much misconduct in with “voter fraud” as possible, to create the impression that the problem is far more significant than it actually is.

Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.

Researchers, reporters, public figures, and policymakers confronted with claims of potential fraud should carefully examine these claims before calling for action. Do the claims depend on matching information from one list to another? Is the matching process accurate? Does a match indicate an illegal vote, or is there a more plausible explanation? Is corroborating evidence available? If there actually appears to be a problem, can it be addressed by existing practices, or is a new solution necessary? If so, will the solution proposed - usually either a mass purge or photo identification - really solve the problem? Is the solution sufficiently burdensome that it becomes a greater problem than the problem itself? These basic questions are crucially important to evaluating claims of voter fraud, but are all too often unasked and unanswered.

Policy Brief on the Truth About “Voter Fraud” | Brennan Center for Justice

So the question then becomes, what is the practical impact of such voting restrictions? The following are some of the questions included in a survey conducted by the independent Opinion Research Corporation on randomly selected voting-age American citizens:

Questions

1. Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?

2. If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it?

3. Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?

4. If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

And the key findings were .....

Proof of Citizenship

- As many as 7% of United States citizens ... 13 million individuals ... do not have ready access to citizenship documents.

- Citizens with comparatively low incomes (< 25K/year) are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship than those earning more. At least 12% of those who fell into this category did not.

- Documentation proving citizenship often does not reflect the citizen’s current name. Using 2000 census citizen voting-age population data, this means that as many as 32 million voting-age women may have available only proof of citizenship documents that do not reflect their current name.

Photo Identification

- As many as 11% of United States citizens ... more than 21 million individuals ... do not have government-issued photo ID.

- Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification than the general population. 18% of American citizens age 65 or above ... more than 6 million individuals ... fall into this category.

- Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification than the general population. 25% of African-American voting-age citizens - more than 5.5 million individuals - fall into this category. Compared to 8% of white voting-age citizens.

- Citizens with comparatively low incomes (< 35K/year) are more than twice as likely to lack government-issued photo ID than those earning more. At least 15% of those who fell into this category did not.

- Photo identification often does not reflect current information. 18% of citizens aged 18-24 ... more than 4.5 million individuals ... do not have government-issued photo ID with current address and name.

CITIZENS WITHOUT PROOF: A Survey Of Americans’ Possession Of Documentary Proof Of Citizenship And Photo Identification

These voting restrictions have been pursued in earnest since the 2010 elections by newly empowered GOP state legislatures around the country. An excerpt from a press release regarding a study conducted on the impact of the legislation taking effect in 2011 and 2012:

New voting laws could make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012, according to the first comprehensive study of the laws’ impact.

Widespread voting cutbacks could have a significant electoral impact in next year’s hard-fought races, the study concludes. Minorities, poor and young voters will likely be most affected.

“This is the most significant cutback in voting rights in decades. More voters may be affected than the margin of victory in two out of the past three presidential elections,” said Michael Waldman, the Center’s executive diector. “In 2012 we should make it easier for every eligible citizen to vote. Instead, we have made it far harder for too many. Partisans should not try to tilt the electoral playing field in this way.”

Study: New Voting Restrictions May Affect More than Five Million | Brennan Center for Justice

I predict that these laws will be challenged at a federal level. There are issues of Constitutionality, compliance with the Voting Rights Act, etc. At best these laws strike me as a solution in search of a problem. At worst they strike me as a concerted GOP effort to suppress the vote of certain groups that traditionally vote Democrat ... just enough to tilt the 2012 elections in their favor. We shall see how it all plays out.

OAW

[Doofy]

I don't know OAW. Poor people don't have the sense to vote properly, so why should they be allowed a vote anyways?

[subego]

What question of OAW's are you attempting to answer?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

What question of OAW's are you attempting to answer?

Don't you read anything? If you did, surely it'd be obvious?

Originally Posted by OAW

- As many as 7% of United States citizens ... 13 million individuals ... do not have ready access to citizenship documents.

- Citizens with comparatively low incomes (< 25K/year) are more than twice as likely to lack ready documentation of their citizenship than those earning more. At least 12% of those who fell into this category did not.

And I'm not attempting to answer anything. I'm having a laugh.

[subego]

So?

[Doofy]

So what?

[subego]

So, I don't have a problem with people exercising their right to vote, even if they lack ready access to citizenship documents.

[ghporter]

When I lived in Mississippi, the issue wasn't about affording ID, it was about being motivated to bother to vote versus being repressed and not voting. This was as recently as 1995, and the politics were not about repressing the poor (or the minority) voter, but about how those voters were organized. Not "your economic situation will improve if you vote for X", but "don't both to vote because you aren't white and educated. Some of this was insidious, some was overt, but it was there.

Here in Texas, Gov. Perry called a special legislative session for "emergency" needs that included requiring photo ID for voting. The legislature failed to pass the desired bill, but the debate was heated. It came down to complaints that needing ID would hinder poor, elderly and minority voting, despite the fact that the offered bill allowed for our state ID card (which is inexpensive and fairly easy to get) and the suggestion that voter fraud was a serious and pressing problem (which was thoroughly refuted time and again). My thoughts were that a voter should WANT to be properly identified to ensure that his/her vote was protected, and that the arguments against the law sounded like "we could organize and get lots of voters to the polls almost as simply as we could whine about this rule by just organizing people without IDs to get them en masse-but we like whining better".

There should be no real financial burden associated with voting, but having ID that lets you cash checks and verify your birthdate at the liquor store and that costs $10 or less doesn't sound much like a burden. But history shows that election fraud is not usually "voter" fraud as much as "electn official" fraud. Here in Texas, we have probably the perfect illustration of election fraud: the infamous "Box 13" ballot box that pushed LBJ over the top in his 1948 election to the US Senate. "Finding" a ballot box that hadn't been counted in a tight race is one thing, but having it contain just enough votes for one particular candidate, in a district that was historically solidly behind that candidate's party AND that had a legendary history of shady voting practices was simply too much to be believed. Except that those votes WERE counted and LBJ went to the Senate. (Where he was both exceptionally productive and exceptionally "good" as a legislator, I must add.)

Election fraud is not a problem that voter ID will end, but I also do not see affordable and easily obtained ID as a mechanism that would prevent someone from voting, especially if a determined political party were to get behind an effort to get appropriate ID for their base population.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, I don't have a problem with people exercising their right to vote, even if they lack ready access to citizenship documents.

Oh, cool. I'm gonna try to to vote in Canuckistan next time.

I'm sure they'll just believe me if I tell them I lived there my whole live, but got no freaking documentation.

-t

[subego]

AFAIK, you have no right to vote in Canada.

I don't have a problem with people not being able to exercise their right to vote, if they don't have a right to vote.

[OAW]

Well speaking of Texas, it has enacted one of the most most restrictive pieces of voter ID legislation in the country. Some key takeaways from a letter submitted to the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice by the Brennan Center:

Although Texas law already requires voters to produce identification at the polls, the new legislation would limit the acceptable forms of voter identification to one of the following types of photo identification:

- A Texas driver’s license;
- A personal identification card issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety and featuring the voter’s photograph;
- An election identification certificate (this is a new form of state photo identification created by the legislation);
- A U.S. military identification card featuring the voter’s photograph;
- A U.S. citizenship certificate featuring the voter’s photograph;
- A U.S. passport; or
- A concealed handgun permit issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Other things it does ...

- Eliminates birth certificates, bank statements, and utility bills as valid forms of ID. These were previously acceptable.

- Prohibits voters from using state or federal government employee identification cards as an acceptable form of photo ID.

- Prohibits voters from using state university student ID as an acceptable form of photo ID.

Per the letter ....

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, any jurisdiction that seeks preclearance for a change in its voting laws must demonstrate that the proposed change is not motivated by a discriminatory purpose and will not have a “retrogressive effect” on the voting rights of racial and language minority groups.

Yet the analysis shows ....

A. Available data show that African-American and Latino citizens are less likely than white citizens to possess a form of identification required by Senate Bill 14.

1. National data demonstrate the disproportionate impact of photo ID requirements.

2. Senate Bill 14’s limited list of acceptable forms of photo ID disadvantages African- American voters by excluding student IDs but including concealed handgun licenses.

B. Texas’s African-American and Latino citizens face greater financial and logistical barriers than white citizens in obtaining a form of photo identification required by Senate Bill 14.

1. The cost of obtaining the necessary identification will disproportionately limit minorities’ ability to obtain such identification.

2. African-American and Latino citizens have less access to both public transportation and private vehicles than whites and therefore face greater obstacles in obtaining photo identification from DPS’s Driver’s License Offices.

3. Minority citizens must travel farther distances than whites to obtain photo identification.

C. Senate Bill 14 grants broad discretion to polling place officials and thereby creates new opportunities for discrimination against minority voters.

The entire letter is 16 pages so it's too long to quote all the details here. But here's a link for anyone who's interested in seeing the numbers and specifics behind the conclusions reached above.

Letter to the Department of Justice Urging Denial of Preclearance for Texas Voter I.D. Law

OAW

[subego]

"...by excluding student IDs but including concealed handgun licenses."

That's pretty special.

What ID do you need to buy a (non-concealed) gun in Texas?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

AFAIK, you have no right to vote in Canada.

No? What proof do you have of that?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

What ID do you need to buy a (non-concealed) gun in Texas?

Apparently all you need is a valid state issued ID. Texas has no waiting periods or firearm registration.

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/

But this is what's required to get a CHL in Texas:

- Social security number,
- Valid driver license or identification card,
- Current demographic, address, contact, and employment information,
- Residential and employment information for the last five years (new users only),
- Information regarding any psychiatric, drug, alcohol, or criminal history (new users only),
- Valid email address, and
- Valid credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or American Express)
ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE

TxDPS - Concealed Handgun Licensing

So the question is what is meant by "identification card"? What's odd here is that if the purpose of the photo ID is to verify your identity ... why is a photo ID issued by a state university not sufficient ... but a generic "identification card" used to obtain a CHL is?

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No? What proof do you have of that?

We can cut him in half and see if the bacon comes in strips or platters.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Apparently all you need is a valid state issued ID. Texas has no waiting periods or firearm registration.

That's probably better than me being able to use my line about it being easier to enforce your will on the world with hot lead than with a ballot.

[andi*pandi]

"bank statements, and utility bills as valid forms of ID. These were previously acceptable."

I don't see why these were previously acceptable. Proof of residence for getting a library card, sure, but not proof of citizenship for voting.

[OreoCookie]

It's very weird to me as a non-American that bills or bank account details are acceptable means of identification, shouldn't you at least need some form of photo id?

[Doofy]

Here, the government sends everyone over 18 a little card a few weeks before an election. Simply take the card along to the polling station and ta-da, ability to vote! No ID required.

It's not like your government hasn't got a clue who's over 18 in each household, so how come you can't manage a simple system like this? The words "couldn't organise", "piss up" and "brewery" spring to mind.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's very weird to me as a non-American that bills or bank account details are acceptable means of identification, shouldn't you at least need some form of photo id?

You can use these as supplements if the address on your other ID isn't up to date.

[subego]

Likewise. A simple verification system at the polls is a signature. You sign an affidavit that you are you, and the election judge compares that to what's on your voter registration document.

If you have a recent utility bill, it proves you still live in the precinct better than a photo ID (which often aren't updated until they expire). If the bill and your signature match what's in the book, it's all good.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's very weird to me as a non-American that bills or bank account details are acceptable means of identification, shouldn't you at least need some form of photo id?

You need 1 form of ID to buy a gun, but 2 to pay for it by check.

Welcome to America.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here, the government sends everyone over 18 a little card a few weeks before an election. Simply take the card along to the polling station and ta-da, ability to vote! No ID required.

It's not like your government hasn't got a clue who's over 18 in each household, so how come you can't manage a simple system like this? The words "couldn't organise", "piss up" and "brewery" spring to mind.

Your assuming that the voters in question have a mailing address.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here, the government sends everyone over 18 a little card a few weeks before an election. Simply take the card along to the polling station and ta-da, ability to vote! No ID required.

We get those in Chicago. Each jurisdiction has its own setup.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Your assuming that the voters in question have a mailing address.

Honest question. Can you be a resident of place X without a mailing address in place X?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

"bank statements, and utility bills as valid forms of ID. These were previously acceptable."

I don't see why these were previously acceptable. Proof of residence for getting a library card, sure, but not proof of citizenship for voting.

Bear in mind that there are two times when one needs to provide ID. When one registers to vote ... and when one casts their vote. The voter ID laws are targeted at the latter. When one arrives at their local polling place, the ID is used to verify that one is in fact the person whose name is registered on the voting rolls. How many people are walking around with the bank statements or utility bills of someone else? And of them, how many of them are going to turn around and then try to impersonate that individual at the ballot box? Especially when they can be easily found when the "real person" arrives to vote and sees that someone else has forged their signature on the voting roll?

And what makes these laws even more retarded is that in many if not most states ... one does NOT have to provide proof of citizenship in order to REGISTER TO VOTE. You sign an affidavit saying that if you register to vote and you know you are not legally entitled to register, you are committing an election offense that is punishable by imprisonment, a fine or both. Then you submit a form of ID. Many will accept things like a government issued ID, drivers license, utility bill, bank statement, or a student ID. But some of these same states ... all of them with GOP controlled legislatures ... have in recent years started requiring government issued photo ID that typically requires proof of citizenship in order to CAST YOUR VOTE. Now if that isn't putting the cart before the horse I don't know what is.

The bottom line here is that voter impersonation ... the crime that these photo ID laws are ostensibly supposed to combat ... is virtually non-existent. But an illegal immigrant with a drivers license can register to vote AND cast a ballot in an election ... and these photo ID laws wouldn't do a damned thing because he could prove he was the person on the voting rolls at the polling place. Go figure!

It seems to me that the most pervasive problem we have when it comes to voting is people who are eligible to vote who either don't bother to vote ... or are unable to vote due to work conflicts. As a democracy we should be making it easier for people to participate in the electoral process ... not harder. Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here, the government sends everyone over 18 a little card a few weeks before an election. Simply take the card along to the polling station and ta-da, ability to vote! No ID required.

That's precisely how it works in my state. You don't need that voter registration card. Other forms of ID are acceptable. But it's there as an option. And there is no picture on it either.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Likewise. A simple verification system at the polls is a signature. You sign an affidavit that you are you, and the election judge compares that to what's on your voter registration document.

If you have a recent utility bill, it proves you still live in the precinct better than a photo ID (which often aren't updated until they expire). If the bill and your signature match what's in the book, it's all good.

That's exactly how it works where I live.

OAW

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honest question. Can you be a resident of place X without a mailing address in place X?

Remember we're talking about excluding the working poor: bad credit rating so you can't rent / buy property means you live in motels, use prepaid cell phones, get paid in cash / check cashing services, don't own a car. Totally feasible.


People who can afford computers and internet access really shouldn't be complaining about $10 for an id card.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can use these as supplements if the address on your other ID isn't up to date.

Could wee talk about how stupid it is that a bill is used to establish residence ?
That thing can be faked easier than a student ID.

Seriously, this has always struck me as dumb.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Remember we're talking about excluding the working poor: bad credit rating so you can't rent / buy property means you live in motels, use prepaid cell phones, get paid in cash / check cashing services, don't own a car. Totally feasible.

As bad as that is, but if you live in those circumstances, w/o being able to proof basically anything beyond your physical existance, you shouldn't be able to vote.

Otherwise, you would basically allow *anyone* to vote, because anyone can make up that kind of story.

-t

[Athens]

The goal of any voter card or any system should be to prevent those not entitled to vote from voting. Sadly I don't see a voter card doing that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Remember we're talking about excluding the working poor: bad credit rating so you can't rent / buy property means you live in motels, use prepaid cell phones, get paid in cash / check cashing services, don't own a car. Totally feasible.

In a practical sense though, are these people considered residents in most jurisdictions? Wouldn't they be transients?