[Spliffdaddy]

Much to the dismay of Democrats, who believe that even illegal immigrants should be able to vote..

WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to require Americans to show proof of citizenship in order to vote, and the Senate moved to build a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border as Republicans sharpened attacks on illegal immigration before the midterm elections.

The 228-196 House vote on a new photo ID plan and the Senate's consideration of the fence were both part of a get-tough policy on illegal immigrants that Republicans have embraced after Congress' failure to agree on broader legislation that would set a path for undocumented workers to attain citizenship.

House GOP leaders have insisted that tighter borders and tougher laws must precede more comprehensive immigration changes. The House passed the fence bill last week and plans votes Thursday on other enforcement measures: to increase penalties for people building tunnels under the border, make it easier to detain and deport immigrant gang members and criminals and clarify the ability of state and local authorities to detain illegal immigrants.

Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. "This is not a new concept."

"This is what Americans want," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., "They want safe borders and they want safe ballots."

But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly - groups that tend to vote Democratic - who might have trouble producing a photo identification.

"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said he was initially denied a voter ID required under a Missouri state law because he doesn't have a driver's license and couldn't immediately produce a passport or birth certificate. His congressional ID card was not accepted.


You have to cut the Dems some slack, though. They have a hard time getting votes.

First, they have to recruit new voters. Historically, these were folks that had no interest in voting - but since they got a free pack of smokes, doorstep service, and they merely had to sign a form - they obliged. Now they'll have to sign a form *and* produce a photo ID before they get that free pack of smokes.

So, on election day these 'recruits' really couldn't be counted on to actually show up at the polls. After all, they never found the wherewithal to register to vote - until a DNC operative knocked on their door and gave 'em a pack of Newport 100's. So, the Dems would have to go find those recruits and give them a ride to the polls - which required yet another pack of smokes.

Inevitably, the new recruits got confused with the ballot...leaving dangling chads - or sometimes even voting for a Republican!

While they hate to admit it, the DNC reportedly spends upwards of $60 per voter in their "get out the votes" campaigns. The Republicans do not have "get out the vote" campaigns.



carry on.

[itai195]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. I agree it's ridiculous that one doesn't have to show identification when voting, but the more requirements we impose on voters the more legitimate voters will be disenfranchised.

[TheWOAT]

Its about time. Legitimate voters should be able flash some picture ID.

[mitchell_pgh]

May I be the first to say... IT'S ABOUT TIME!

How is this hurting minorities, the poor or the elderly? What, they don't have the $10 required to get a photo ID? I love the reference to the "poll tax" and how it will disenfranchise a large number of legal voters.

Sounds like some democrats want it both ways. They want the polls to be perfectly accurate, but don't really care who is voting.

Also, the example of Rep. Ike Skelton not having a drivers license is ridiculous. Oh, wait, perhaps we should be worried about all the wealthy out there that have personal drivers!

[itai195]

Are you seriously asking if poor people don't have $10 to spend on something as useless to them as a photo ID?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by itai195

I have mixed feelings on this issue. I agree it's ridiculous that one doesn't have to show identification when voting, but the more requirements we impose on voters the more legitimate voters will be disenfranchised.

We are going from requiring nothing... to requiring SOMETHING.

I'm still waiting for the part where people describe how this will disenfranchise people.

[TheWOAT]

Im not asking that... I am asking that they spend $10 on an ID instead of HBO for a month.

[itai195]

And I'm waiting for the part where you explain how a family living hand to mouth can scrape up $10 for a useless ID. Or $20 I guess if there are two parents. That'd be $42 in CA I think. If these people have absolutely no use for the ID other than when voting, how is it not the equivalent of a poll tax?

[Spliffdaddy]

In most states, the poor and elderly can obtain a photo ID free of charge. They have to show proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate. Of the states that do not offer free photo IDs - rest assured they *will* offer them in response to the new House bill.

[TheWOAT]

So how do the parents get to work without Drivers licenses? Expain further this family's situation.

[mitchell_pgh]

And I'm waiting for you to explain why we place more requirements on underage R rated movie attendance than voting.

[itai195]

Spliffdaddy, that's true, and when that's the case it's fine by me. In CA I think the poor still have to pay a reduced fee, but the elderly can get photo IDs for free.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

And I'm waiting for you to explain why we place more requirements on underage R rated movie attendance than voting.

I don't know, I suspect you can thank uptight moralists for that? I'm not against having identification requirements when voting btw, if you read my original response. I am concerned when it's done in such a way that may disenfranchise people.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

So how do the parents get to work without Drivers licenses? Expain further this family's situation.

Wow, have you ever lived without a car?

[Spliffdaddy]

PS, I bet you the 700 mile border fence never gets built. It's one of those things that sounds good before election day.


I can't believe the voter ID bill almost didn't pass. Talk about an out-of-touch Congress. Just about 90% of Americans think it's a good idea - yet Congress votes 222-196 ??

Who the hell are those 196 idiots?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by itai195

Wow, have you ever lived without a car?

I don't own a car. I have a drivers license. Also, you can get a state issued photo ID.

Also, if you are on public assistance, you still need a photo ID to cash your check. Also, EVERYONE has a US issued birth certificate unless they are a foreigner... and if you are a foreigner, you should have some other form of ID.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by itai195

Wow, have you ever lived without a car?

Legally, you can't get a job in the United States, without proving your ability to do so under the law.

And some form of photo ID must be produced as part of that process.

ID is necessary for so many basic things, I find it ridiculous not to have one. Espescially considering that you cannot open a bank account, cash checks, buy cigarrettes/alcohol, etc without a valid photo ID. It would almost seem like having a valid ID is necessary to make money in any legal capacity.

[itai195]

Hm,, I'm not sure if having a photo ID is the requirement for a job or if you can get by with a social security card. Anyway, there are plenty of people who don't have IDs in this country for whatever reason, so we can't simply wish them away. I'm very much for requiring ID when voting, as long as we provide some solution for people who don't have IDs.... that's all.

[Spliffdaddy]

Somebody find out the exact requirements for voter registration in the new House bill. Seems kind of conflicting....do you need a photo ID or just proof of citizenship? Also, do you have to show this photo ID (or birth certificate) *at the polling station* - or just when you register to vote?

The voter ID bill is H.R. 4844

I can't find any details

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by itai195

Hm,, I'm not sure if having a photo ID is the requirement for a job or if you can get by with a social security card. Anyway, there are plenty of people who don't have IDs in this country for whatever reason, so we can't simply wish them away. I'm very much for requiring ID when voting, as long as we provide some solution for people who don't have IDs.... that's all.

So because there are people who don't have ID, we can't require it to vote?

Im sure that states will find some way to ensure that people can get IDs, but honestly, my gut feeling is that people who havent bothered getting IDs are for the most part not rushing out to vote (or can't legally vote)

[itai195]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I don't own a car. I have a drivers license. Also, you can get a state issued photo ID.

I'm aware, I was responding to TheWOAT's seeming incomprehension of people who manage to get to work without driving.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

So because there are people who don't have ID, we can't require it to vote?

I think that if we require it we must also make it quick, easy, and cheap for people who don't have IDs to get them. I can envision plenty of folks having trouble getting photo IDs... heck, my wife had trouble getting a library card.

[TheWOAT]

I have lived without a car for a couple years, but I still had a CA ID... I guess I have a different look on things.. I see every morning people I know who are illegal driving cars less than 7 years old. I look at the fields and see many cars 5-8 years old, but in nice condition. IF an illegal alien (like my cousins, uncles, aunts) can get a car, AND a license, I dont see how a US citizen could not. If you demand nothign of people, you will recieve as much.

[mitchell_pgh]

I wonder why the Democrats are so against it?

They could simply start a "We'll buy your photo ID" program.

[TheWOAT]

Incomprehension? You gave some hypothetical worst case scenario of a poor family choosing between voting and living, and I asked for further details like how did they drive to work? Do they rent an APT or live in the PJs? Do they get GA checks?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

I have lived without a car for a couple years, but I still had a CA ID... I guess I have a different look on things.. I see every morning people I know who are illegal driving cars less than 7 years old. I look at the fields and see many cars 5-8 years old, but in nice condition. IF an illegal alien (like my cousins, uncles, aunts) can get a car, AND a license, I dont see how a US citizen could not. If you demand nothign of people, you will recieve as much.

I know plenty of people who have neither licenses nor cars. They just don't need them. Personally I don't know how anyone can get through life being illiterate either, and yet people manage.

Incomprehension?

That's why I said seeming

Sorry I jumped to conclusions there a bit.

[TheWOAT]

I dont see how requiring an ID creates such a barrier as to disenfranchise voters. Of course, Im not including that sad case of a family you described earlier, is Tiny Tim the youngest son?

[itai195]

Yeah and he needs surgery too, you know

[Spliffdaddy]

OK, I found it.

This is an amendment to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

and it takes effect *this* November.

GovTrack: H.R. 4844: Text of Legislation

WOW. They didn't leave any loopholes.

You have to provide a photo ID *or* proof of citizenship (as defined somewhere else) in order to register to vote.

You have to provide a photo ID at the polling station before you can vote.

If you mail-in either a ballot or voter registration application - you must enclose a photocopy of your photo ID.

If you wish to make a 'provisional ballot' on election day at the polling station - you must have a photo ID. A provisional ballot is a ballot from a non-preregistered voter.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

I wonder why the Democrats are so against it?

They could simply start a "We'll buy your photo ID" program.

Or Hugo Chavez could buy them!

[TheWOAT]

Torn ACL?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

Torn ACL?

He broke his leg tripping over his new Nikes when he got up to change the channel to HBO.

[TheWOAT]

Why do we allow such things to happen in our country? A remote control in every house is something we should push for, make it a slogan in '08.

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by itai195

He broke his leg tripping over his new Nikes when he got up to change the channel to HBO.

And now theyll need to put a ramp on the Benz

[Spliffdaddy]

You can lead (or drive) a newly-recruited Democrat voter to the polling station - but you can't be sure they'll understand the ballot.

"We've got a disenfranchised voter!!! He voted for a Republican! OMG, that must have been a mistake!! He was CONFUSED by all the choices!!"


Newsflash - not every elderly person or minority votes exclusively for Democrats.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

And now theyll need to put a ramp on the Benz

I'm just worried that he doesn't have health insurance. Isn't that in the Bill of Rights?

[TheWOAT]

I believe its the 2nd Amendment... "Right to bear arms stuck with IVs in a hospital bed"

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I'm just worried that he doesn't have health insurance. Isn't that in the Bill of Rights?

It's right next to the right to a liveable wage and the right to not be offended (aka freedom from religion)

[Sky Captain]

What's wrong with some form of ID.
You have to show it to the bank to cash a check.
Hell, some banks REQUIRE a fingerprint.
Any measure to cut fraud. Be it banking or voting.

Hell, pretty soon we'll be required to have the ID chip for banking and paying bills.

[Big Mac]

Before we get too excited about this very rational measure, there's no reason to think the Senate will comply.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

PS, I bet you the 700 mile border fence never gets built. It's one of those things that sounds good before election day.

Yep. It's pretty blatantly just one of those things politicians have decided it's a good idea to say.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by itai195

And I'm waiting for the part where you explain how a family living hand to mouth can scrape up $10 for a useless ID. Or $20 I guess if there are two parents. That'd be $42 in CA I think. If these people have absolutely no use for the ID other than when voting, how is it not the equivalent of a poll tax?

They would have already gotten their ID so that they could qualify for gov't assistance. States don't charge for an ID under hardship conditions.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by itai195

Are you seriously asking if poor people don't have $10 to spend on something as useless to them as a photo ID?

I guess folks are saying that IT SHOULDN'T BE USELESS. It should be required in order to received health care, voting "rights" and other privileges.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

They would have already gotten their ID so that they could qualify for gov't assistance. States don't charge for an ID under hardship conditions.

In that case I am probably okay with it. As long as it's easy and cheap to get for people who don't already have one. I agree it's important to stop voting fraud but it's just as important to keep voting accessible to every citizen.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

In most states, the poor and elderly can obtain a photo ID free of charge. They have to show proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate. Of the states that do not offer free photo IDs - rest assured they *will* offer them in response to the new House bill.

This is true. But you are leaving out (conveniently perhaps?) one critical part. A lot of these same people who don't have Photo ID also don't have a birth certificate. And getting a replacement birth certificate, if one even exists at all, costs money and takes a considerable amount of time. Which effectively amounts to a poll tax. A lot of women have name changes as a result of marriage. Proving identity in these cases means you have to locate marriage certificates ... which you may or may not have especially if you've been divorced. Regardless of the intent, the effect will be that many eligible voters who are poor, minority, and/or elderly will not be able to vote.

A lot of middle-class or above people take something like a driver's licenses for granted. But I personally know people who have never driven a car. My own great-grandmother never drove. Ever! Her husband took her everywhere she needed to go or she took the bus. So she never had a driver's license. She was also from the south, Mississippi to be exact, born and raised in the Jim Crow era. And she had no birth certificate either. We had to rely on her memory to determine her age when she passed because there was no "official" documentation. And this isn't anything particular to her. In fact, it is quite common. Let me make this point so the magnitude of this is clear ....

The fact of the matter is that in the South during this era the birth of a black child was considered to be on the level of the birth of a pet by the white community which controlled the state and local governments. Consequently, black babies quite often could not get a birth certificate. And didn't. Many elderly black people, especially those born before 1960 in the South, do NOT have a birth certificate to this day as a direct result of Jim Crow.

Again, many people simply take having a driver's license or a birth certificate for granted. They only see the world through their own experiences and refuse to acknowledge that other people have different experiences even when it's pointed out to them. They can't or won't see how big of a deal this would be to someone who is struggling to survive and catches the bus every day to work. Or how this would affect an 80 year old woman who can't prove that she was born in a certain location at a certain time because no one who knew her is around (or alive) anymore. Believe me ... on the surface this seems like a really reasonable thing to require. But it really is not a trivial matter. Which is why it's such a skillful political maneuver on the part of the Republicans!

I'm familiar with this issue because the Republican legislature and Governor here in Missouri are pushing similar legislation at the state level. If it goes into effect it will be right before the November elections, so a lot of people will show up at their regular polling place with their voter registration cards ... all that they have needed for years ... and suddenly won't be able to vote. Especially in the urban centers of St. Louis and Kansas City. Areas not likely to vote Republican. Coincidence? Perhaps. But as it stands now a state judge has ruled it unconstitutional and the whole thing is on appeal. And in Missouri, all this foolishness started with the 2000 presidential elections ....

Opinion Shaper: Voter ID requirement: necessity or nuisance?
O'Fallon Mo Journal,St. Charles Journal,St. Peters Journal,Wentzville Journal
08/20/2006

So you're an 87-year-old woman who has lived in the St. Louis area your whole life, had a driver's license for more than 50 years, never been a felon, and wants to vote. Good luck.

Especially for anyone that does not have someone to escort them around.

At least that's what I found out when trying to help my mother-in-law obtain a voter ID card.

Just after the Fourth of July, my family had the emotional task of moving my in-laws from a retirement home to full-time care. Along with the physical move came the administrative nightmare of changing the address, telephone number, cable and insurance. Now add to that list getting voter ID cards.

My father-in-law would be a lesser problem. I had his birth certificate; and being a man, he never had a name change. Unfortunately, without her birth certificate, my mother-in-law would be a challenge.

I went to the Missouri Department of Revenue's Web site to see what I needed to do. If you were renewing a valid driver's license, it was clear there was an exception for needing a birth certificate for someone older than 75. It was less clear for my mother-in-law, who hasn't had a valid license this millennium.

A call to the DOR in Jefferson City quickly confirmed her need for a birth certificate. My request that Gov. Matt Blunt go to Illinois and pick it up for me was met with a chuckle and "I don't think so." That chuckle turned to laughter as she overheard me mutter, "Only two more years."

A call to the St. Clair County, Ill., recorder verified that yes, indeed, my mother-in-law was born, and for only $11.95 I could confirm it. I thought I was home free, but then I remembered the Web site said something about other proof being need if there was a name change. I realized her birth certificate would have a name different than the one she has used the last 67 years.

Another call to Jefferson City established that, indeed, a marriage certificate was needed. A call to St. Louis County would substantiate that for another $6 I could affirm she was not living in sin.

Now, I am not against jumping through hoops if voter fraud really were a problem, but I believe this was just an example of what business school textbooks refer to as management by exception. An example of management by exception would be a teacher demanding a 1,000-word essay on getting to school on time from the entire class just because one particular child is always late.

The nexus of the voter ID law lies in the election of 2000. The St. Louis Board of Elections sent a letter to all registered voters who had not voted within the last year, warning that those not replying would be removed from the voter list. This resulted in 33,000 names taken off the list.

Lacy Clay, running for his retiring father's congressional seat, warned the election board's members they had taken thousands of legitimate voters off the list, and if they didn't allow these people to vote, they would be sued. The board did not relent, and chaos rained on Nov. 7.

Because of that chaos, a federal judge ordered election officials to keep the polls open until 10 p.m. and accept votes from anyone that showed up. The voter's registration would be verified later. The next day a firestorm of protest began with U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond's hysterical, fist-pounding, accusatory speech. The culmination of this outrage is the current voter ID law.

Did massive voter fraud occur, or is this new law just management by exception, punishing all voters because of the abuse of a few?

Then-Secretary of State Matt Blunt investigated the 2000 election and found only 135 people that voted were not registered. In addition, 14 dead people voted, 86 voted twice, and another 1,400 votes were in one way or another questionable.

Those numbers might seem shocking, but put into context the questionable votes were only six hundredths of 1 percent of the total Missouri vote. That's like worrying about 60 cents of a $1,000 bill. All Missourians are now being punished for the misdeeds of an extremely small minority. This is classic management by exception.

In the rush to correct a flaw that affected only a few hundred votes, politicians are disenfranchising tens of thousands of elderly and disabled voters. Despite hundreds of thousands of Missourians needing non-driver voter IDs, less than 500 were issued in the first month of the program.

In a recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll, only 18 percent of Missourians favored voter ID's.

In the Missouri Legislature's special session this September, legislators need to repeal or revise the voter ID law so Missourians are ruled by what is best for the majority, not by exceptions.



Carl Peterson of unincorporated St. Charles County is a manufacturers' representative and former president of the Ferguson-Florissant School Board. He is one of 24 Opinion Shaper columnists for the Suburban Journals of St. Charles County. Opinion Shapers are chosen annually to write five columns on topics of interest to them.

STLtoday - Suburban Journals

All of this is just stupid IMO.

1. There is no evidence of significant levels of voter fraud.

2. Absentee Ballots ... where the majority of voter fraud that does take place is not even addressed in these bills.

3. The flaws of Electronic voting machines, which has been shown to be insecure repeatedly, is not addressed in these bills. Perhaps because of Diebold (the manufacturers of the voting machines) ties to the Bush administration?

4. Any illegal alien that would even try to vote (most of whom wouldn't go near a voting booth because of INS fears) would have fake identification anyway.

So what purpose does this serve other than to suppress the vote of the poor, minority, and/or elderly?

OAW

[RAILhead]

The whole disenfranchisement thing is crap.

1. Do you want to vote?
2. Yes.
3. Get an ID.
4. End of story.

"I can't afford one, boo-hoo-hoo" -- but 99% of the time "those people" are spending 10 times that much on smokes, booze, cable TV, gas, pot, whatever.

[Millennium]

Many of the services used by the poor already require some form of ID. Assuming that these forms of ID are also acceptable at polling places, then an ID requirement does not require the poor to get anything new.

In other words, the poor are not disenfranchised by this. Assuming that the law is even remotely properly crafted, it does not require anything of them that they do not already have.

[itai195]

Don't forget Nikes!

[ink]

Originally Posted by OAW

This is true. But you are leaving out (conveniently perhaps?) one critical part. A lot of these same people who don't have Photo ID also don't have a birth certificate. And getting a replacement birth certificate, if one even exists at all, costs money and takes a considerable amount of time. Which effectively amounts to a poll tax. A lot of women have name changes as a result of marriage. Proving identity in these cases means you have to locate marriage certificates ... which you may or may not have especially if you've been divorced. Regardless of the intent, the effect will be that many eligible voters who are poor, minority, and/or elderly will not be able to vote.

I don't know about other states, but in Utah you can get a photo ID with your social security card. You can get a replacement SS card without a birth certificate (I know, I did it). You can also buy SS cards on 1st street in Santa Ana for about $50; I haven't done that, but I know several that have.

1. There is no evidence of significant levels of voter fraud.

2. Absentee Ballots ... where the majority of voter fraud that does take place is not even addressed in these bills.

3. The flaws of Electronic voting machines, which has been shown to be insecure repeatedly, is not addressed in these bills. Perhaps because of Diebold (the manufacturers of the voting machines) ties to the Bush administration?

4. Any illegal alien that would even try to vote (most of whom wouldn't go near a voting booth because of INS fears) would have fake identification anyway.

So what purpose does this serve other than to suppress the vote of the poor, minority, and/or elderly?

Yep.

The margins, however, have been so close over the last few elections that every little bit counts. When you get 100% of the policy control by getting 48.9% of the popular vote, you have to do things like this.

[mitchell_pgh]

The left can cry "Poll Tax" and "Disenfranchised" as much as they want, but I simply don't agree.

Originally Posted by OAW

This is true. But you are leaving out (conveniently perhaps?) one critical part. A lot of these same people who don't have Photo ID also don't have a birth certificate. And getting a replacement birth certificate, if one even exists at all, costs money and takes a considerable amount of time. Which effectively amounts to a poll tax.

Yes, you can get a replacement birth certificate. My state charges $10 for a replacement and requires a signature.

Originally Posted by OAW

A lot of women have name changes as a result of marriage. Proving identity in these cases means you have to locate marriage certificates ... which you may or may not have especially if you've been divorced.

Most people that get married change their name on their ID cards. In fact, many states require it by law. You also get a marriage certificate when you PURCHASE a marriage license. Regardless, you would still need to change your voter registration information with the old system... I'm not seeing the big deal.

Originally Posted by OAW

Regardless of the intent, the effect will be that many eligible voters who are poor, minority, and/or elderly will not be able to vote.

I don't agree. The people that will not vote are those that are lazy. As always.

Originally Posted by OAW

A lot of middle-class or above people take something like a driver's licenses for granted. But I personally know people who have never driven a car. My own great-grandmother never drove. Ever! Her husband took her everywhere she needed to go or she took the bus. So she never had a driver's license. She was also from the south, Mississippi to be exact, born and raised in the Jim Crow era. And she had no birth certificate either. We had to rely on her memory to determine her age when she passed because there was no "official" documentation. And this isn't anything particular to her. In fact, it is quite common. Let me make this point so the magnitude of this is clear ....

You DO NOT need a drivers license.
- You can get a state issued ID card for $10 [or free in some states]
- She could also have received a copy of her birth certificate for either $10 [or free in some states]

Originally Posted by OAW

The fact of the matter is that in the South during this era the birth of a black child was considered to be on the level of the birth of a pet by the white community which controlled the state and local governments. Consequently, black babies quite often could not get a birth certificate. And didn't. Many elderly black people, especially those born before 1960 in the South, do NOT have a birth certificate to this day as a direct result of Jim Crow.

Again, many people simply take having a driver's license or a birth certificate for granted. They only see the world through their own experiences and refuse to acknowledge that other people have different experiences even when it's pointed out to them. They can't or won't see how big of a deal this would be to someone who is struggling to survive and catches the bus every day to work. Or how this would affect an 80 year old woman who can't prove that she was born in a certain location at a certain time because no one who knew her is around (or alive) anymore. Believe me ... on the surface this seems like a really reasonable thing to require. But it really is not a trivial matter. Which is why it's such a skillful political maneuver on the part of the Republicans!

Wait... are you saying all Republicans are rich? Last time I checked, the "red states" were some of the poorest states in the US.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b..._income_d.html

I'm guessing you are only upset about the inner city poor that generally vote Democratic... not the rest of the poor in the country.

Also, by demographic, Republicans are also generally older than their Democratic counterparts. I guess because Republicans are so rich they don't worry about such things as IDs. Republicans just phone in their votes.

Originally Posted by OAW

All of this is just stupid IMO.

1. There is no evidence of significant levels of voter fraud.

[/quote]

How can you have evidence if you don't check IDs?

Originally Posted by OAW

2. Absentee Ballots ... where the majority of voter fraud that does take place is not even addressed in these bills.

You must submit a photocopy of your ID. That can, in turn, be tracked back to a real person. Even if I borrowed an ID, I could only use that ID once as compared to our current system where I can fill out as many names as the graveyard has.

Originally Posted by OAW

3. The flaws of Electronic voting machines, which has been shown to be insecure repeatedly, is not addressed in these bills. Perhaps because of Diebold (the manufacturers of the voting machines) ties to the Bush administration?

Nice diversion. It shouldn't be addressed by this bill.

This is how I envision voting should be:

1) show your voter registration card and photo ID
2) You walk over the the voting computer and select the people you want.
3) The computer prints out 2 cards (one you keep, one you give to the polling station)
4) For the "night of" results, we use the voting machine numbers, and for the final results, we hand count the votes per box to make sure the machine was accurate.

5)* I should be able to go home and check my vote to ensure that it was correct. Either online or via phone.[/quote]

Originally Posted by OAW

4. Any illegal alien that would even try to vote (most of whom wouldn't go near a voting booth because of INS fears) would have fake identification anyway.

How do you know illegal aliens don't vote? It's not like we require ANYTHING to vote. Also, many illegal aliens DO have drivers licenses... they simply stipulate that they aren't citizens. Many states don't require that you be a citizen to drive.

Originally Posted by OAW

So what purpose does this serve other than to suppress the vote of the poor, minority, and/or elderly?

It ensures that the people voting are the people they say they are. It also thwarts multiple votes by a single person or votes by an illegal alien.

I think illegal aliens SHOULD HAVE nearly all the rights of citizens, but voting isn't one of them.