Why would we need a photo?

... Short of an army of handwriting analysts to compare against past examples.

... But I think you knew that.

and the poll workers have my original signature right in front of them.

Hell, around here most places don't even require an ID if the amount is under $50 and I haven't had to sign for gas in so long I forget the last time it was necessary - 1980's I think.

... there is ample lead time (e.g.: one year) and any cost incurred to get an ID are compensated by the State, and there aren't artificial barriers placed between you and your ID.


None of those things are true in the States that did (or tried to) implement voter ID.

Oh, and there is NO in-person voter fraud, so the expense is a waste.

The free state issued ID's were supposed to be available from the local DMV

Problem is:
Texas closed some DMV offices
Parts of rural Texas are 200 miles from the nearest DMV

So federal courts turned it down.
I also think the Supreme Court will turn it down too.

If you don't have the $15 it takes to get an ID, you can't vote.

google "poll tax"

But i am aware of it. Of course the Poll Tax was designed to keep the wrong people (i.e. blacks) from voting. $15 does not seem onerous enough to achieve that goal. But what if the ID was made free?

Bryant

And provided by the state.

Is nothing an acceptable amount to ask people to pay?

Healthcare is not currently universal and free. We still talk about what if it were.

It's not that difficult of a hypothetical.

$15 can be a serious barrier to older people on a fixed income, or to poor people. You will say that they should be willing to pay for the right to vote, but why should we create that barrier? There is no evidence whatsoever that people steal one another's ballots. No evidence of voter fraud caused by lack of photo ID.

The photo ID laws are simply a way of suppressing the vote among people who tend to vote Democratic, ie, poorer people. The costs and barriers associated with such laws are extensive. They include the fact that many people can't put their hands on their original birth certificates, many older people and poor people don't drive so they don't have driver's licenses, few poor people have passports, and without those types of ID it is virtually impossible to get a photo ID.

providing free cards to the minority that do not have IDs is impossible (pigs flying and so on). And is unfair because free cards costs 15 bucks.

You will say that they should be willing to pay for the right to vote, but why should we create that barrier?

Yes, clearly saying it should be free is proof that it should cost money.

Because words don't mean anything.

You sound a lot like a Republican. You seem to be hoping to confuse people by suggesting that ID cards could be free, although they're not, and when several of us point out that the fact is that they are not free, you accuse us of being "silly." That sounds very familiar. Sounds like a Romney ad or a FreeRepublic post.

Wow. What a world you live in.

You seem to be hoping to confuse people by suggesting that ID cards could be free, although they're not

Gasp! Suggesting that we could live in a world different than the one we currently reside in? What a crazy notion.

How conservative to suggest that we might Progress to something better.

I should be more liberal like you and insist that if we don't already have something that means it's impossible. Besides change is scary.

/healthcare could be free, although it is not. The minimum wage could be livable, although it is not. Taxes could be more progressive and hit the very wealthiest harder, although they are not currently like that. And so on.

you have to have ID to buy booze, cigarettes...and to get food stamps etc...I am a staunch Dem, but I see no problem with with ID to vote.

Oh wait. It's not a problem. It's manufactured bullshit. Why "solve" a problem that doesn't exist?

would providing free government IDs to everyone as many European democracies already do have on our democracy? Could our nation survive such a policy? Likely we could.

Do you agree?

we should make no effort to change that?

Rather than Progressing we should seek to Conserve some sort of idealized past?

Are you sure you're on the right board?

Not ginned up "problems" created in the back room of the RNC.

Do you feel A) that issuing free IDs will destroy our nation and B) settling this issue once and for all is meaningless?

/also do you agree with others that if we do not currently give out free IDs that proves it is impossible that we ever could?

Taking time off work to go and do it when you live paycheck to paycheck and live in a "right to work" state where they might fire you just for not coming in if your boss happens to be a prick? That free too?

Transportation to wherever you have to go to get the ID issued? Also free? For some people the nearest place isn't near.


The republicans know all this. And they know that their voters tend to be more well off and for them they'll have ID anyway so this means nothing to them. A lot of them can't even process that it might be a problem to get one of these IDs. But for the people on the bottom rung of the ladder it can be a serious inconvenience, easily rising to the level of discouraging them from voting at all. WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

Especially when voter fraud is a made-up "problem" in the first place.

gets tiresome explaining life's difficulties to the never-been-there, always-been-comfortable crowd

nt

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept.

We can't get a plastic card to every American? What a low opinion you must have of this nation.

God help us on anything complicated like healthcare. If plastic cards are beyond our abilities we should just give up.

So far, no voter ID laws or proposals have included such a provision, so whether or not it CAN be done is irrelevant. It's NOT being done, so these measures should be opposed.

I personally think all passports, licenses, state issued non-drivers' ID cards, and certified copies of an individual's vital records should be free to obtain. But they aren't, and they're not likely to be in the foreseeable future.

great, that puts you ahead of several posters.

Since we agree this is possible then we must disagree on it's utility.

I think it would be great because it would put the issue to rest for once and all and give voters a greater confidence in the electoral system.

Do you disagree that those would be good things?

Transportation and taking time off work?


Yes or no; we provide free transportation and federal holidays for people to get to the polls? If no then by your reasoning voting is basically a poll tax in itself.

walk me through the entire process will you?

Let's see if any of it is too onerous.

Do they come to your house (assuming you have an address) and hand you the form or do you have to seek it out in some way?

Does it require any sort of identification verification?

And of course the standards vary by state so which one is correct? http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx

Tons of people vote absentee.

We're not talking about the majority here, are we?

But turning in my absentee ballot on time was so important I paid 32 dollars to overnight ship it yesterday morning. DoE in my county screwed up my first absentee ballot app and I got my second one just in the nick of time. Hopefully it gets there - I'm one of those guys who believes every vote counts.

But voting is important - and nobody ought to have to pay anything for it!

When you register to vote in this state, you have to provide your California drivers' license number or the last four digits of your Social Security number. One or the other or you aren't registered.

Further, you have to sign under penalty of perjury that the information you give is true -- and it's a felony if you are lying.

Second, you have to sign the registration form. While someone might be able to copy your signature, there aren't many people so good at forgery that they could sign another person's signature on the voter registration roles and make it look enough like the real signature to fool the voter registrar.

It really is not necessary to slow down the voting process by requiring each person to show an ID in addition to signing in, etc. The wait in line is long enough without exaggerating the likelihood of fraud.

Why in the world would anyone commit voter fraud in order to vote, what, two times? Each vote counts, but not that much. It is a felony. Don't even think about it. It isn't worth it.

People who commit felonies risk years in prison. Anyone who would do that in order to vote twice belongs in a mental hospital.

Believing that fraud in voting exists just to gain one vote is ridiculous. The possibility that one side might tamper with the computers in order to change a number of votes -- whatever number could be decisive -- is the real danger.

for me to drop $15 on anything besides food or gas is asking a lot, and I don't have mouths to feed.

most college students have at least 2 IDs! One with their actual birth date and one that shows they are of legal drinking age.

So I thought I would let you know that to many it is a big deal. Just because you enter college, or are of legal drinking age, doesn't mean your pockets get deeper. I know plenty of people who had to put off getting ID so they could save up for it. Its $48 for a new license and $75 for a renewal in Florida, these things are not cheap, and republicans know that. These voter ID laws would be fine in my opinion, if they would have been passed years ago and not right before the election. This is voter suppression, there is no other explanation for it.

I see no issue with ID if there is a simple method to get one without cost. Possibly even offer the service at the same location that you register to vote.

But honestly, I do not believe there are all of the "fraudulent" voters the freepers scream about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1728638

You're never going to reach a level of "simple method to get one without cost" that won't discourage the people at the bottom from getting one. And that's the primary reason the GOP push it. That and the fact that they know people like you will think about it the way you are obviously thinking about it so won't realize what insufferable anti democratic pricks they are being with their "common sense reasonable" attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Birth certificate is a tough one to get, it takes a long time and is not free.

As I said, I do not believe in the fraudulent voter, so I do not see the need for voter ID. I was trying to find a "common ground"

voting process. A lot of people don't take their ID with them to walk a couple of blocks to the polls.

In order to possibly intercept a minuscule number of fraudulent votes?

be quite a hurdle for someone who is disabled or very elderly.

IDs are unfair and a no go.

The voter registration process protects the vote from fraud. It is all computerized right now. In California, you have to give either your California ID or drivers' license number or the last four digits of your Social Security number on your registration form which you sign under penalty of perjury. In this computer age, fraud in voter registration is easily discovered at the voting registration stage of the game, and requiring that people show their ID at the polls would slow the voting process. Some people walk just a couple of blocks to vote and don't take their ID with them. I could walk to my polling place without an ID.

I was asked for my ID one time when I voted. So were the people in front of me. Took quite a bit longer to sign in because we had to pull out our IDs.

Showing your ID when you vote is unnecessary. When you vote in my neighborhood, you are likely to be recognized by someone as a neighbor. (I live in a huge city so that's how close the polls are to my neighborhood.) The people working the polls in my specific are are usually pretty prominent in the community.

Here in Florida a state ID card is $25 and has to be renewed for the same price every so many years (six, I think but I cannot find the info online right now). In addition, you have to provide a certified copy of your birth certificate - if you are born in Florida that costs about $10; your Social Security card; proof of name changes (for married or divorced women that means copies of each marriage license and divorce decree); and proof of residence.

For many elderly who were born at home, there may not be a birth certificate. For some (such as my mother) there could be errors when the birth records were transcribed to computers. (Mom had a four year battle to get her birth date corrected after some clerk typed '22' instead of '21'. Until that was done she could not renew her driver's license or get a state ID. It also interfered with here receiving her Social Security and Medicare.)

So in Florida it is a minimum of $35 to get the state ID. On top of that it takes time not only to go in to apply but to collect the needed documentation. For someone working a minimum wage job with no vacation time, just getting time to get to the DMV office costs them wages IF they can arrange the time to go at all.

If we need photo ID in order to vote, why don't we put pictures on our VOTERS CARDS and provide them for FREE?

The form was handwritten and it listed her first name as Annie instead of Helen, the name she lived her entire life as. She never drove so never had a driver's license.

What would've happened to her in some of these states?

Hers had "unnamed female child" - no name other than the last name. I remember seeing her old birth certificate - the one she used to join the Navy Nurse Corp with - that said that. The 'new' one with the incorrect birth date still had no name and the DMV would not accept it.

She had to get judge certified photo copies of the family Bible, her enlistment papers, her application to the Social Security Administration, and MORE documentation before the state of Alabama would correct their records so she could get a birth certificate with information that matched what she she had used as a first name and birth date. She'd send them stuff, they'd ask for more, she'd collect that, send it in, they'd ask for more, rinse & repeat.

If it had been up to the local DMV office, they would have just given it to her. She's lived in the same town since 1948 and most of the clerks there have known her all their lives - same for many of their parents. You'd think that would count for something!

"$15 does not seem onerous enough to achieve that goal..."

Which begs the question: What is the precise and relevant amount that is not "onerous", and on what objective measure is that figure based on.

I think other people have made good points about non fee related expenses - it's tough for the elderly or people without cars to get to places where they can acquire a photo ID - particularly if they are in rural areas.

So $15 bucks (or $20 or $25) includes for some, additional travel expenses that could move into onerous territory.

As for Onerous enough - it depends on what the goal is - the goal of the original Poll Tax was to keep blacks from voting - so the price had to be high enough that most Blacks couldn't pay it (while using Grandfather Clauses to allow poor whites to vote). Requiring a one time fee (or every 5 years fee) of $15 (setting aside the other issues mentioned above) wouldn't accomplish that in my opinion. Plenty of minority voters could put together $15 if needed.

Bryant

Or the transportation to get to a DMV office to get a non-driver photo ID, or the money, or the time since many states make it very difficult to the one place where you can get the photo ID. And another thing, you have to prove who you are when you register to vote. I worked for the Obama campaign registering voters and you have to provide your name, address, date of birth, signature, and/or your driver's license number or the last four digits of you social security number. All of this is turned into the county registrar and the verification process to determine if the info provided is sufficient to prove you are who you say you are is completed. If the address and ID info is correct the info is stored in the county voter data bank and a registered voter card is sent to you. If the info isn't correct it is not added to the data bank and no registered voter card is sent out. So there really is no need for a voter to provide a picture ID when voting because if you name is on the registered voter list you've already been vetted.

Should that preclude you from voting. ID costs money too. Should the poor be precluded from voting? Many elderly people are house bound and can't get to the DMV for id. Should they be precluded from voting?

If it were free and easy to get, and if it were free to get whatever is required to have one, and if the requirements were easy to fulfill, it wouldn't be a problem, but as it is it is basically a poll tax.

I had to do that....

and it is your right, as a citizen to vote, ID or no. Requiring an ID kind of goes against the principal of innocent until proven guilty, saying that essentially you're guilty of trying to vote illegally until you prove that you're not.

That all being said, the demographics of people who don't have a valid ID tend to be minorities, the poor, and the elderly. Think about the way that those people vote, and how disenfranchising them would effect the outcome of elections and you can see why republicans are so adamant about making sure that voting is as restrictive as possible.

Things like, the fact that not everyone drives, and not everyone can afford the expense of a photo ID which generally has the same fee as a driving licence; some states with voter ID laws have been closing licensing offices in, coincidentally, areas with a large minority population (and you know, it's not like people who can't drive can find a day off work and a way to get somewhere 30 miles away when they live somewhere with minimal public transport, especially inter-city public transport).

And if these states want to implement a photo ID program for voting, they need to do it years in advance, not 2 months or less before election day like PA was trying to do. And make it easy to get a photo ID. Not requiring 6 forms of identification to get a photo ID. People don't even need that much to get a passport.

I think that's the biggest controversy surrounding photo IDs - the fact that it was hard to get the photo ID in the first place not that one was needed to vote.

The folks on the right keep wanting to go back to the 1700's...except on that.

ID's cost money (not to mention money to go to a place to get one, etc).

If it's good enough for our founding fathers, it is good enough for me!

They all had implanted RFID chips too, didn't they?

You then probably will have to get a birth certificate in order to get the id, which is another expense.

I know my name, DOB, address.. Surely that proves who I am well enough. My grandmother never had a picture id because she never drove. Some people just never need an id.

I didn't get my driver's license until I was 23. Until that time I got a State ID card. It costs around 10 bucks. I take your point about seeing both sides of the argument. The problem is that low income, disabled, and elderly voters are the ones most likely to be impacted by the ID requirement. When I voted today, there was a sign listing acceptable and unacceptable forms of ID. It opens the door for Republicans to fight harder to keep adding more and more barriers to keep certain kinds of groups from voting. The Republicans know who is more likely to be impacted by these barriers. Low income voters tend to move frequently. Disabled and elderly voters may not bother with getting a state ID and let their license expire.

also cost money.

have to show all documents in my state. it cost money, not just for the id, but to obtain the documents needed to get an id. voter fraud is so low, that it is not worth disenfranchising voters, unless that is your goal. a 90 year old war veteran, an 80 year old nun who have been voting for years, disenfranchised for some bogus law to suppress voting.

the repugs have made this an issue, when it is a non-issue. the big giant fekkin elephant in the room is more like voter intimidation, registration destruction, ballot tampering. it affects more than 1-2 per cent voter fraud. the repug woman in nevada who attempted voter fraud, now states she did it to make a statement. another words, it looks like to me, a plant.

this woman and those like her, don't want "certain" people that they deem not worthy of voting. period!!!!!

Go find out how much it costs to get a certified copy of your birth certificate, and then how much it costs to get a non-driver ID.

That is why one birth certificate request and DMV ID should be free. It should be part of any Voter ID law. Also registration should occur when the DMV ID is issued.

If you live in State A, and you were born in State B, there is no way for State A to require State B to provide you with a free copy of your birth certificate.

And for the disabled and elderly, that can be a big, big problem, especially if the DMV is a long way away, maybe even in a different town.

No. People who don't see the problem with this are affluent and insensitive.

Homeless people still have the right to vote. They can write down the last four digits of their Social Security number and sign and they are identified. If the computer sees the same Social Security digits twice, it will note the similarity. The address and other information can then be checked.

This is the computer age. We do not need to show our IDs at the polls. The Registrar's office vets voters when they issue the voting card and put the name on the rolls.

and would be voting absentee- so the id thing would be irrelevant.

and btw- i'm not advocating for voter id- i think that it's wrong. i was just pointing out how some hurdles could be overcome.

There are lots of polling places, whereas there are few DMV offices and they have limited hours. It's difficult for me to get to DMV offices and I'm not on a time clock. There is not a DMV in my town - the nearest ones are more than a half hour drive from my workplace, and when I go on my lunch hour there are lots of people in line. I have to take a half-day vacation to go to the DMV. My polling place is within walking distance of my home.

there may be fewer dmv offices- but they're open all year. polling places- not so much.

I have my own car and can afford to keep it running. I have a job that allows me to take vacation when I request it. And I have all the usual forms of official identification that are common to the educated professional class - I have a current driver's license. I have my original birth certificate. I have a passport. I have my original social security card. I have a recent power bill.

Lots of people don't have those things through no fault of their own, but because of their circumstances. They happen to be people who are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. The Republicans know this. That's why they're attempting to suppress the vote of Democrats by creating barriers.

but they still have the right to vote. IDs should not be required. They would prevent too many people from voting, especially the very elderly and the disabled as well as the very poor.

you are, it costs absolutely nothing. It doesn't require trying to get birth certificates that weren't used at the time or place of your birth, it doesn't require 4 hours of running around from desk to desk to get the proper identification. If the ID costs absolutely nothing (like having your adult child vouch for you when you are 90) then let's go at it. A utility bill, a paystub, whatever, but it shouldn't cost a dime and it shouldn't take an entire work day to try to comply, and it shouldn't require your adult explaining for two hours what it is you need after you've voted for 40 years.

Have you not followed the news? Or are you just trolling?

There is no evidence of voter impersonation. This issue has always been a solution looking for a nonexistent problem.

So, for those states who insist upon it, do NOT try to implement it in 60 days, knowing that the poor and the city dwellers (hmm, Democratic voters) don't have time, money, and cars to get driving licenses (or photo IDs from driving stations conveniently located in the car-dominated suburbs).

In Illinois we have had a common sense solution. NO PHOTO ID for Election Day voting in home precincts where there are more qualified workers who can take more time. Voting is a right. Photo ID REQUIRED for EARLY VOTING (a privledge) ONLY. Just as we saw President Obama do. No squalking because everyone has known since the last election that ID is required for early voting.

Yes, you are clearly missing the fact that Republican-controlled states tried to ramrod these "solutions" looking for problems at the end of an election year. And, as evidenced by Ohio SoS and Florida Governator, they are continuing to do all they can to obstruct the voting process.

Sheesh. Go do some phone banking.

It is an unpopular position on this board. The main reason for fighting voter ID are the reports of the difficulties in getting a picture ID from the DMV along with Voter Registration. I see an immediate opportunity for a small job's program - federal dollars allocated to get every individual a DMV style identification. Every nursing home, apartment complex, etc should be visited with this in mind. Also federal dollars should be allocated for a one time request for birth certificates. This should start next year - nearly two years before the next Congressional election.

Trade this for getting rid of the touch screen voting machines without paper trails and complex absentee ballot restrictions. All absentee ballots should be postage prepaid with two envelopes - the outside containing the DMV number and signature and the inside with the ballot. No one but the postal service should be collecting these ballots. Those already registered can have their outside envelope bar coded when sent to them. Those in the registration process can write the DMV number.

even if it's 10 dollars.

and one birth certificate for the DMV should be free.

The hurdle of having to get to a location to get an ID is significant for many people. Just like literacy tests and grandfather clauses weren't poll taxes either, but just as effective in denying the right to vote.

. . . the idea of the jobs program to get everyone in the country an ID if we then can get rid of the easily hacked computer voting machines. If not, let's go back to paper ballots, or like in New York where they used to have the old unhackable, mechanical pull-the-level voting machinces. In Germany they use exit polls (because they are accurate to within one precent) to declare the winner even before the votes are counted. Here, as in 2004, the MSM discounts the exit polls if they don't match the tallies from repug vote hacking. What a fucked up system we now have, we the country that extolls our great democracy through "free" elections. Now we on the Democratic side have to work even harder to get our people out to vote to make the margins too big for the repugs to overcome with all their vote suppression and hacking dirty tricks.

I have never needed one yet in 40yrs of voting

the authorities they would have to go before to get one.
Ever heard of driving while black?

If this was a Federal requirement, it was FREE, you could get it almost anywhere, and proof of citizenship was easy to obtain it the first time...like countries that have them to clean rolls and all that....it would be one thing.

Read how it is done...it is meant to suppress votes.

Oh and one more thing...voting fraud is not there...the few cases (one this cycle for the whole country) have been republicans.

That's also what cleaning the rolls is about.

In general terms, cleaning the rolls should be even less objectionable than the photo ID - you don't want your lists to be cluttered up with people who shouldn't be on them. In practice, it's a tool for Republican secretaries of state to get people off the rolls that are not going to vote the right way.

I guess my question is more the philosophy behind it - if you take out why Republican want a photo ID is it still worth looking at - there are plenty of reasons why, it seems, short of providing a free photo id to everybody, it might be a bad idea.

Bryant

That is a model worth looking at, but it also removed a lot of control from the states as it standardized the election under a federal office.

France has a similar system

The problem with IDs is that it is still part of the patchwork of 52 electoral systems.

I personally think we actually need a standard system in some ways under the Feds.

This will require an amendment and STATE RIGHTS will be the mantra.

The compromise is civil rights legislation. But the card itself, should be obtainable, if we go that route, at the mall, the supermarket and the bus station. In other words, everywhere.

And we have enough data that proving citizenship should be straightforward.

It's the fact that different states have different election laws specifying what constitutes valid ID, and what does not. For example, in Texas, an NRA membership card is considered valid ID at the polls, but a student's university ID is not.

NRA members (especially in Texas) tend to vote republican. College students tend to vote Democratic. It's deliberate suppression of an entire voting demographic.

I am for ID to vote.

Nothing should have to be paid in order to vote, esp. since "voter fraud" is a right-wing made-up non-existent "problem."

at least not a state-issued photo ID. Someone who has been homeless for years may no longer have a driver's license and certainly has no permanent address.

What does that have to do with people who are not receiving federal benefits, want to vote, and don't have a photo ID?

been a handful of fraud cases of someone claiming to be somebody else, what's the point? Requiring an id with a photo is a barrier to the poor, minorities, and the elderly. The hassle some states have built into their rules is absurd! Some require the ids be issued only at certain out-of-the-way sites. How does somebody without transportation get there? Some places are only open from like 9-4 when people work.

Back to my main question, what's the point of having that requirement?

or on the ballot as referenda (which is what happens in Minnesota), I think there's plenty wrong.

Here in Minnesota, the question SOUNDS innocent as stated on the ballot: A photo ID would be required, and the state would provide one. However, the actual TEXT of the amendment, which has not been publicized, adds all sorts of "gotcha" provisions that would require redoing the state's entire voting system, including absentee ballots and ballots of military personnel overseas. It could potentially disenfranchise anyone who moved or had their ID lost or stolen within two weeks of the election. (By the way, you have to prove your identity and address to REGISTER already.)

The "state-issued photo ID" is not defined, and it would have to be free, or else it would amount to a poll tax, which means that a permanent bureaucracy would have to be set up to produce and issue these IDs. (This from a party that wanted to eliminate aid to people who care for a disabled family member in their home and which shut down the state government last summer rather than raise taxes on the richest taxpayers.) About 15% of Minnesota's 3 million or so eligible voters currently lack a state-issued photo ID, and new people would need IDs every year.

Furthermore, the GOP whispering (and radio ranting campaign) has been racist and hate-filled. The radio ranters are telling their audiences that the Democrats win elections only because they "cheat" by taking busloads of welfare recipients and illegal immigrants from precinct to precinct. They claim that this amendment will solve the "problem," even though there is nothing on any state ID that proves citizenship. (I personally know several non-citizens, here legally, who have driver's licenses.)

The potential for racial profiling is huge. I know of precincts in this state where Ole Olson, who has voted Republican for 50 years, would not get asked for his ID, but a dark-skinned person with a Spanish accent (who might be Puerto Rican and therefore a U.S. citizen by birth) or a young person in Islamic dress (who might be part of the first generation of Somali-Americans born in this country) would be questioned.

Even more important, voter impersonation, voting in someone else's name, is exceedingly rare, something like 14 cases nationwide in the past ten years. This Republicanite effort serves two purposes:

1) To bring out the racist vote for their own benefit. This is clear in their "unofficial" radio programming.

2) To distract from the REAL problem: election fraud, such as electronic voting machines, malicious culling of the voter rolls (supposedly to remove "felons," but actually to remove anyone whose name sounds African-American), moving polling places without prior announcement, sending too few ballots or other equipment to Dem-leaning precincts, dirty tricks, intimidation, "losing" ballots, "correcting" totals, and, as was recently uncovered in Oregon, actually altering ballots.

Here's my general rule about Republican initiatives: Even if they sound innocent on the surface, there's ALWAYS a catch. ALWAYS. Today's Republicans don't do "innocent."

controls 40% of its wealth (and 10% of the country's population controls 80% of its wealth).

or the state of Ohio will invalidate my driver's license in Oklahoma (which, while I don't live there, I visit for lengthy periods of time). I do not want to get a driver's license here, because it is a temporary move, and I don't feel like taking the damn written and road tests. I would've happily did the state ID route, but not at the expense of my driver's license. That my passport and voter ID card isn't enough is insane.

Now, to be fair, I only have to bring a paystub or a bank statement, so we'll be fine.

then YES- you need to get a valid driver's license. at least that's how it works in illinois

But that's usually not the case, so it winds up disenfranchising some, and proportionally more on our side of the aisle.

They always cashed their social security checks and all personal checks at their local banks or general stores that had done business with them for years. That's the way it was in many rural communities. They used their social security cards or even baptismal certificates for IDs. I only used my Social Security card and high school diploma to get in the Army 38 years ago. When my sister and I--we're both retired nurses--were discussing voter ID--she told me that when she contracted for a nursing home/independent living conglomerate, a shuttle would often take the residents shopping, visiting relatives and sometimes to those check-cashing places. They accepted DD Forms 214, Social Security cards, resident utility bills, the independent living address they were at, in any event, without photo ID's, they needed at least 3 forms of other proof of identity or verification. I take it they didn't extend the courtesy to many, but they'd see the shuttle idling outside the business and the manager wanted that extortionist fee for cashing their personal checks. It's all very alien to me, having only dealt with elderly military retirees and their military IDs who live at the local Air Force Village and go the commissary and PX in their plush shuttle. I guess one way we could scare off teabaggers from wanting voter ID would be to tell them everyone would need to get micro-chipped. With their fear of the Anti-Christ and the Mark of the Beast, maybe they'd back down.

I guess in Texas, it doesn't matter. For early voting, everyone would have to swipe their driver's license. I do remember years ago that I had to show my registration card (no picture id) and their books had my name where I had to sign next to it.

But if they don't, no photo ID required. SS card works fine.

Washed away, doncha know.

Because there would be many elderly and disabled who wouldn't be able to vote.

It's a big damn deal to leave the house at all.

Because the mail-in vote would become obsolete.

And let me tel you, it's the way to go.

Because there's no percentage in that kind of voter fraud, no matter what the GOP says.

I mean who DOES that, votes under a false name?

Because it's suppression and America doesn't do that.

This is just an attempt to intimidate voters, and keep out the poor, elderly, and minorities.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2012/11/02/the-presidential-election-who-is-ahead-and-why

Ever since election 2000, Republican attempts at voter suppression have grown more numerous and more brazen. And why not? They got away with suppressing enough legal voters in 2000 to affect the election for President. They are going to continue doing this until the party gets a big enough black eye from it that they have to stop. It could be a long time before it comes to that.

A small part of what has already come out regarding Republican voter suppression efforts this election is as follows:

• Pennsylvania’s Republicans enacted a strict voter ID law that was struck down by the courts. Some of Pennsylvania’s older African American community has never had a state issued ID and were born at home at a time when people didn’t necessarily register their births.
In other words, a this voter ID law would have prevented a significant percentage of elderly African Americans from voting. This block votes reliably Democratic 90-95% of the time
• Florida’s blocked (by the courts) attempt at another broad purge from the election rolls. The courts later approved a more modest version of the purge, but again, here is an attempt to disenfranchise legal voters that had to be turned back by the courts.
• Billboards by GOP Donors in Ohio and Wisconsin warning people about stiff penalties for voter fraud.

This is another thing we see from Republicans, efforts to intimidate voters. Now you might say to yourself, whats wrong with these billboards? Well, a small but significant amount of minority voters have a distrust of the establishment and of law enforcement in general. If they see an indication that they will attract law enforcement attention merely by exercising their right to vote, they may not show up at all.
• Mailers in Ohio and Arizona were sent out to Democrats by elections officials with the wrong election date (i.e. one or more days after the election)

The instance of this in Arizona was more striking Arizona election officials sent out the right information in English, but the Spanish version had the wrong date. Latinos tend to vote Democratic, Arizona’s state legislature and Governor are Republican. You do the math.

• Robocalls to Democrats were made in Virginia telling people they could vote by phone for convenience. There is no ability to vote by phone in that state.
• In Pennsylvania, despite the blocked law, the state kept putting posters up and sending mailers to voters saying they would need to show ID to vote on election day.
• In Wisconsin, Romney campaign poll watchers are being intentionally trained with misleading information to give out to the voters they are supposed to help vote.
• A Texas poll worker wrongly tells someone trying to vote early that they need a drivers license. Texas courts in August effectively struck down that states attempt at a voter ID law, but some poll workers are trying to enforce the now struck down law that is not on the books.
• We have an odd report of an early voting irregularity in Broward county Florida. The vote tally in a heavily African American community was manually revised down by about 1000 votes. Polling officials originally said a computer glitch was discovered that caused an incorrect high number of votes. They then revised their story to say that it was a human error that caused the error.

Mind you that Florida is one of the states where the GOP is already embroiled in a large voter fraud scandal where one of the firms it hired was turning in thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms.

The firm called Strategic Allied Consulting of Tempe Arizona was not only registering fraudulent voters in Florida, but also in Nevada, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia.

• And finally a story I reported on Sunday, La Porte county Indiana Republican co Director of voter registration Donna Harris had more than 13,000 voters or about 16 percent of the 80,000 La Porte county voters registered in 2008, purged from the roles. The head of La Porte county’s Democratic Party has asked the US Department of Justice to investigate.

So we have this torrent of election and voter fraud going on by the Republican Party that makes their shenanigans in Florida in 2000 look small and amateurish by comparison.

You know what scares me, though? These are the things we know about. These are the things that the Republicans have been CAUGHT doing. Does anyone believe we have caught every single instance? Do you think we’ve even caught two thirds, or a half, or a quarter of the things Republicans are doing to try to steal this election? I don’t think so, I think this is probably a small percentage of the cheating that Republicans are doing.

When you register to vote, they take your picture and give you a photo ID at no charge to you. The burden is on the state to have the equipment in place to generate the ID. And the information you need in order to register to vote will not have changed.

Edited because: But I guess that would still make it hard on people who don't register in person. The bottom line is that voter ID laws are being pushed as an attempt to suppress certain votes. A fair system could probably be devised, but there is no pressing need for it in the first place.

did you get your answer?

Maybe having a free national ID would be a good idea, though. If nothing else we could put some people to work developing and distributing it.

Bryant

Proof of ID should be required in my opinion but there are those who no longer have one.

We get juror notices, receive social security checks, pay our income taxes, etc. without any IDs.

Some voters have been on voting lists for years (are known by their locals) and have voted over the years with just showing a tax bill or utility bill. Remember: You needed some type of ID in the first place when you registered and signed up to vote.

So the local/state/Fed gov't should be able to set something up in order to get those people some type of voter ID without any cost. If they really wanted voter ID then they could take a picture of those who don't have it at the next election or primary -- thereby covering most of that population at one time.

Social security, IRS, medicare. Most Western countries have a national ID. As long as they are free and easily obtained, there's nothing wrong with them.

Getting one can be a problem in itself that can prevent people from exercising their right to vote.

have to show a birth certificate in order to get the picture ID. They probably do not have drivers' licenses because they may not drive or may be quite elderly.