I can't wait until someone forces them to crack under pressure during a hearing and admit this.

Rec!

to travel on an airplane within their own country an attempt to keep people of color on the bus or the train?

For the life of me, I cannot explain why one circumstance is considered racist, and the other is considered a national security necessity that goes unprotested.

Every people that has fought for the freedom to vote was resisted because of the danger they were perceived to be, and those people were willing to risk violence against them for the right to vote.

Besides, nobody's ever going to get into the cockpit of a commercial airliner ever again, period. The crew in that cockpit has strict orders to never let that happen, no matter what is going on in the back of the aircraft. Being as there's a good chance of them dying if they do let a hijacker in, they have every incentive to comply with that rule.

Again, back to my comparison, if it's not an onerous burden for a person wishing to fly within their own country to obtain and hold valid photo identification for what could be an emergency trip to see a dying relative, then why is it considered such an extreme hassle for an election that has a known date on a calendar?

The purpose for an ID for voting is purely to disenfranchise specific voters, namely those more likely to vote Democratic.

I'm unclear why you are taking pains deend this Republican policy, particularly when their stated reason--voter fraud-- has been shown to be complete bullshit.

Why is security theater OK with people here, but voting security theater not OK?

I don't care if it's Republican policy or not, I just don't see why one is 100% OK and the other is 100% evil.

Making it harder for particular subsets, who often favor Democrats, to vote is a throwback to the days of poll taxes and literacy tests as part of voter registration.

The photo ID laws affect women, people of color, elderly, disabled, and students in a way that reflects a poll tax. It is more cumbersome and expensive to acquire the documents needed to obtain the photo ID if one does not have it.

For the life of me, I can not understand why some are willing to believe that there are individuals willing to intercept or steal a piece of someone's mail in order to impersonate them at the polls. Or, why someone would be willing to believe that someone who is insecure because of their immigration status would show up to participate in an activity which entails any degree of personal scrutiny.

Some ordinary, everyday American, born and raised here, yet having to go through the scrutiny that is part of travelling within one's own country is considered a minor hassle, yet gathering up the documentation two to four years before an election to be able to vote in that election is considered an impenetrable barrier?

The same ATMs and websites that we trust on an almost daily basis to fairly and accurately transact our financial business is questioned severely when we vote by machine. I seem to have little trouble finding a goodly number of circumstances where two incidents involving doing pretty much the same thing produce polar opposites of opinion as to their fairness and accuracy.

Are you saying that because your lifestyle is privileged enough that you drive and travel and do other things that require a current state issued photo ID that other people shouldn't care about lost work and spending money they can't afford in order to acquire the documents required to vote.

The vast majority of people in the US drive, and I'm sure a sizable majority have flown on a commercial airline at least once in their lives. Don't make me out to be some kind of one-percenter.

If one wants to vote in Presidential elections, you have a four year timeframe to gather up enough things to get a suitable photo ID. It's not like it's a mystery when there's going to be an election.

If you want to make an exception for older folks who were born in log cabins and such, fine. For the last twenty years, every child born in the US has had a Social Security number issued to them before their first birthday. Poor folks seem to be able to find the time to get Social Security cards when there are tax benefits involved, why not have that child keep that card for the rest of their life?

I sincerely doubt that any legal citizen under the age of sixty would have years-long problems getting what is necessary to obtain a photo ID.

to learn to drive? Do you know how many people live in large cities in this country?

But I bet most of them have photo ID cards of some nature. Frankly, it's easier to pay with a check without ID out in the boondocks where everybody knows everybody than in the city.

I'd guess that you have a larger percentage of no-photo-ID folks in the rural areas than you do in the urban ones, especially since photo ID is an important part of getting government services, transacting everyday purchasing, and so on.

Found the following chart here: http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/08/15/as-the-number-of-americans-with-driver%E2%80%99s-licenses-declines-so-should-oil-use/



Once you start getting into voting age, the number is about 60%, and climbs from there all the way to folks in their sixties. According to that chart, some 90% of people in their late sixties have driver licenses.

Maybe this chart's data is off a bit. You'd have to reduce the numbers shown sharply to get anything less than a vast majority. And that's just driver licenses, it doesn't include state issued photo ID cards.

I said that we could make exceptions for those of advanced age. They won't be voting for too many years, anyway. Eventually, 100% of the citizen population would have no valid excuses as to why they don't have photo ID.

there IS no Voter Fraud....ONLY Rightwingers think that there is....is THAT your problem?

are too quick to think there's fraud when an electronic voting machine is involved, even if it's the same technology they use to do banking at an ATM or pay their bills online.

Both sides seem to have blind spots when it comes to fraud. I say we use all means at our disposal to avoid any appearance of fraud, and give people confidence in the results of elections. Maybe that's why we have such a low turnout for our elections when compared with the rest of the world.

elderly, people with disabilities, and people of color. If you don't give a damn, just don't worry about it. There's no reason to be condescending to people who fall into those groups by telling us that it should be as easy as it is for any person who has a lifestyle that does include regular use of a photo ID.

explain this to me.

I can understand that elderly people may have been born under circumstances that are not often properly documented, but I doubt that very few of the people alive in the US today were not born in a hospital.

Also, folks with disabilities may have issues that impact their getting to courthouses and such to get documentation that able-bodied folks can access, but the disabled do have a bit more time on their hands to get this information. I feel more sorry for people who have to work three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. They truly don't have a lot of time, but in order to get at least one of those jobs, they had to have photo ID to show an employer that they were able to work in this country.

What I really don't understand is why it is more difficult for people of color and especially women. Do men automatically have an easier time getting photo ID than women? Explain this to me, please.

In my state a BC and documentation of aliases is required for a photo ID. For a woman who has changed her name, it increases the necessary documentation and money spent to acquire a photo ID.

"but the disabled do have a bit more time on their hands to get this information." Really? Have you ever tried it? In my case, my days are often shortened because of medication side effects or seizures. A reduction in functional time is very real to those of us who lose it.
In some locales, people with disabilities may have to take a cab to get to the DMV and associated errands. There is no other reason to do it except to get the ID to vote.

Poor people are more likely to not have ID. I know my state charges for birth certificates and IDs. For a person who does not drive and has limited access to public transportation it becomes very expensive very quickly to run errands in cabs. People of color make up a larger portion of that demographic. Older people of color are less likely to have been born in a hospital and less likely to have the resources required to track down the documents, etc.

In cases where it is required, the people who do not have a state issued photo ID will have to spend money in order to vote. The people who are least likely to have a photo ID are poor, people of color, disabled, and elderly. They are the ones who will have to spend money specifically to vote, while people who keep and carry one as a matter of course will not. How is it not a POLL TAX levied against specific potential voters?

and I have to have one for nearly everything I need to do involving using my debit card when getting lunch, my credit card, withdrawing money from my acct, buying a car, getting pulled over by a cop etc... or to work at the grocery store. Need an SSN card too for that matter.

I am trying to understand why it is so hard in one person's entire life to get an ID card. Here in my state I think it is like $3 and you need your birth certificate...

Who in this country is unable to get any type of legal ID at all???

If illegal aliens can get a drivers license, why can an American not get an ID card that is nearly free??? If someone cannot afford an ID card, wouldnt one assume they are living in poverty and getting SNAP, SSA, Welfare, WIC, or some kind of help from the gov't? I have a couple family members on a few different programs and they have all said they had to present id. I dont know from personal experience, but I dont think they are lying to me. I just checked the WIC site and they require ID.

Why isnt our party seeking these people out and getting them help getting an ID?? And getting them gov't assist at the same time?

As a cop for 20 yrs, I didn't run into but a handfull of American Citizens who was an adult who had zero access to an id or had at least had one at one time. Virtually every person who claimed to never have one had a record in the criminal justice database- often also showing an ID card or driver's license. Of course there was the occasional person without, but they generally had never bothered to even try and get one. All you need is a birth certificate and a couple bucks in most cases.

Some would say it is too expensive....most states have a program with reduced fees or even free.

The repub motivation is they think half the democratic votes are fictitious..we also think the same of a bunch of their votes. If we have a solid ID law then they would not be able to cheat in elections anymore right??? And since there is no voter fraud on the democrat side, we will win much more at the ballot box.

Anyway---I'm not getting why it is so hard to get an ID. This has been going on for several years now and people still cant manage to get an id card. I'm sure there is some crazy story out there that is true of a couple people with wild situations who cant get one, but I'm betting the majority of people without one have not even tried to get one. Also if that is the case, how likely are they to vote anyway. It takes motivation to go vote.

This battle is going to go on and on..eventually some massive voter fraud will be discovered somewhere and it will be the catalyst where this lands on a ballot and both sides will vote for it.

As to who will be found committing the fraud- a matter of luck of the draw because we know it has been found on both sides of the aisle.

Someone please tell me why for the average american with a birth certificate and ssn card can people still not get ID cards?? Please.

In some states, a drivers license or DOL non-driver ID is obtained easily -- no onerous backup documentation required just a signed affidavit of citizenship and residency. In the Republican states, the requirements to get that ID are difficult...

Your original Social Security Card (who still has that?) Obtaining it from a social security office can be impossible for someone who is house-bound, for example. Social Security offices are only open M-F during business hours which means many working people aren't able to get there to get a new SS card. There is a fee for a replacement card.

Your birth certificate (no, not the one issued from the hospital with your foot prints on it). If you were born out of state there is the cost and time involved in obtaining a certified copy of your birth certificate. If you are an older person, born at home, there will be no state certificate available for you. Whatever documentation you used to sign up for Social Security will not be acceptable -- only a certified birth certificate will do. If you were born in-state, but live somewhere other than the location in which your birth certificate might be registered, you would have to spend the time and money to get there or rely on the mail.

If you are a naturalized citizen, your certificate of naturalization but not one more than 2 years old. Another fee.

The fact that you may have been registered to vote for the last 30 years has no bearing on this. Your old voter registration card is of no use.

In Florida, people have been deprived of their voting rights by letters from the state saying so. Under the US constitution, one is not supposed to lose one's rights without due process of law. Florida requires people to PROVE their citizenship. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The number of Department of Licensing offices has been reduced and the hours have been shortened so even if you are able to jump through the other hoops, your opportunity to go to the DOL is reduced.

So who does this particularly effect: the poor -- they may have to make the choice between feeding the kids or spending the money on the documents necessary to register to vote. They may not have the transportation necessary to appear in a DOL office in order to obtain registration. The elderly: they may not have the mobility, money or other resources to obtain the documents required. Students: not able to use Student ID cards to obtain voting registration as the registration laws require an expiration date which most student ID's don't have.

Wisconsin’s voter ID law has been blocked twice in court, but the state would have some of the strictest ID requirements in the country if injunctions are lifted. After the law was passed, the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire provided new, optional student IDs including the necessary information. To offset the cost of the new IDs, the university will charge $2 for each, a cost that Democratic state Rep. Gary Hebl calls unconstitutional. “It’s a poll tax, obviously,” Hebl said. “The purpose of the card is to vote with it.” And Hebl said the low cost of the IDs didn’t make a difference. “To charge people to vote is unconstitutional,” he said. “If it costs a nickel, it’s unconstitutional; $2 could be the difference between buying a loaf of bread or voting.” http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/ _news/2012/08/17/

Any requirement that costs money is considered a "poll tax". Poll taxes were specifically banned by the Twenty Fourth Amendment, ratified in 1964 and literacy tests were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

but there cant possibly be so many people who fall into these categories that elections will be lost over it...Sure maybe a city council race but on a bigger scale..not buying it.

Why have these folks not gotten their act squared away in the past 50 yrs? Who goes an entire lifetime without an SSN card?

Again I understand this stuff does happen, but shouldnt we as a party find these people and get them registered??? Whatever it takes? We can hire attorneys to work these issues...lots would do it pro-bono.After that, we will beating their socks off while their folks who arent in possession of an ID and cannot get one dont vote.

Another issue with this is the common perception is that all this is is voter suppression. That is a two way street. Are we saying that it is only democratic voters who are in these situations? If not, why would repubs suppress their own voters?

Thanks and I appreciate your reply.

however, it's known that the higher the voter turn-out, the more likely the Democrats will win. So, in order to keep the turn-out as low as possible, the repubs are willing to sacrifice their own. And, I suspect, a bit of repub snobbery - if you cant afford to register or get to the polling place, they don't want your vote anyway. And as far as "cant possibly be so may people", the exercise of democracy requires that voting be accessible to all citizens.

Yes, there would be pro-bono attorneys, but the bottom line is the same. Every document necessary for voter registration costs money, some more than others. When the choice is $50 worth of groceries for the kids or $50 for a certified birth certificate, it is more likely that the groceries will be top priority. That's why the 24th amendment to the constitution banned the poll tax, and any document that requires a fee for purpose of registration is de facto a poll tax.

Not everyone has a SS#. The requirement for a SS# changed over time and it was not required for children to obtain one (for tax identification purposes on parent's returns) until 1986. And the real killer was the Real ID Act of 2005 which "Establishes State driver’s license and identification security standards which requires States to confirm with Social Security a SSN for issuance of a drivers license or identity card". (P.L. 109-13) Prior to 2005, a drivers license or identity card was sufficient ID for any purpose, including voter registration.

These voter ID laws contain other voter-suppression tricks besides specific ID documentation. For example, by reducing Sunday early voting, it hampers inner-city people who have, for years, gone to their local church on Sunday and the church taking them by bus to their polling place. This was particularly important for people who work all week and not able to take time off for voting, for those without cars for transportation to the polling place and for the elderly and/or handicapped people who have mobility difficulties.

Another trick used is the relocation of the polling place without adequate notification. When it is difficult enough to get to a local polling station, the problems are prohibitive in locating and getting to a new station. I saw a news item on MSNBC a couple of months back where they interviewed a woman (it was Detroit, if I recall correctly) who said that her polling place was previously just a couple of blocks from her home, but since its been relocated it takes two bus transfers just to get to the new place. The time involved and the bus cost is a sure deterrent to voting.

Some of the voter suppression laws have required re-registration, even when people have been voting for decades. This is the most hard-hit demographic as they are the least likely to have any of the documentation required.

Fortunately (for me anyway), I live in Washington State. We have on-line registration; when my granddaughter turned 18 I helped her register to vote on-line. We have mail-in ballots. Those of use who have been registered to vote since dirt was young have not been required to re-register or provide any additional ID documents.

In my opinion, the answer to the voter suppression laws is to expand registration availability, require fee-less documentation and vote by mail, with no postage required. Naw -- that would be too simple.

nobody here has any problem with having to get all that documentation together if you want to fly on an airline within your own country.

I have a feeling that people here think flying is a one-percenter activity, like fifty or sixty years ago, when we called people who could fly "the jet set".

Freedom to travel means as much as freedom to vote. And it means as much as any other Constitutional freedom. The numbering of the Amendments making up the Bill of Rights is not a priority list.

and Republicans want to say things like you Hunting License is allowed (with no picture) but a College Id WITH a picture is NOT admissible.

THAT is the problem.

I'm not advocating that a hunting license with no picture is better that a student ID with a picture. I'm just saying that photo ID is not a big deal, especially since there are so many other rights that you cannot excercise without one.

How about poor people?

Now, on a percentage basis, which party are those two groups more likely to vote for?

I talk to loads of folks who moved here, who tell me about their upcoming trip to the 'home' country.

But that doesn't matter. In order to function in modern society, one needs photo ID. Having it be a part of the voting process is not an onerous burden, especially in the states that have provisions for giving someone a free ID. What's wrong with verifying that the voter rolls are made up of the eligible?

Do you have a reason that you want questionable people to be able to vote? Is the end really worth whatever the means are?

That and your "loads of folks" comment...while failing to answer who suppressing these votes benefits.

Either you are intentionally defending a policy solely intended to suppress Democratic votes, or you are doing it out of ignorance. Neither is very appealing.

by what you perceive to be their results, without considering whether a policy is fair or not. Carding me for flying within my own country is no greater or lesser of a burden than carding me to vote in my country's elections.

We simply disagree on this, because I don't believe that the end, even if it is to my advantage, justifies the means.

"questionable people" and "loads of folks"

is quibbles with my figures of speech, it convinces me further that you and I simply will not be able to understand each others' positions on this.

When he wanted to get a passport, he had to get an affidavit of his birth--from my mom (his oldest sister)
--that was acceptable because she had a security clearance during WWII. She never did own up
to what she was doing during that time, but I remember once she got a visit from the FBI wanting
her opinion of a certain neighbor.

Although my uncle is no longer living, there are lots of US citizens still living in this country who have no
birth certificates. Being born at home was quite common--especially in rural areas--well into the 20th century.

From Wikipedia:

In many developed countries, home birth declined rapidly over the 20th century. In the United States home birth declined from 50% in 1938 to fewer than 1% in 1955

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_birth

in their families farmhouses...The got birth certificated somehow and they lived waaaaay the f out in the middle of BFE.

I know there are those who dont have a birth cert. That being the case, lets help them get a copy of it so they can move on in life.

"lets help them get a copy of it so they can move on in life..."

One might think it even easier and more direct to simply remove the obstacles so many people are intent on placing rather than giving them the assistance to overcome the very obstacles we place for no good reason. It's little more than digging holes with intent, and then coyly asking why so many people don't have a ladder to climb out of it, when common sense tells us no one would be in this hole if wasn't dug in the first place.

So lay out a precise premise as to why precisely the hole is needed, support that premise with objective evidence as to why only a hole will meet the objective, and then supply us with a conclusion predicated on the analysis of the evidence.


Or (and here's the common sense part), simply do not dig a hole, then no one will need assistance receiving a ladder...

How does one get a copy of a document that doesn't exist in the first place?

It's not just a question of getting a copy. I think you misunderstand the difference between a birth being registered with the proper authorities and a person having a copy of that registration (a birth certificate). And, just having a copy isn't enough, it must be certified by the authorities that hold the original registration.

10 in all and not a birth certificate amongst us until later. I got mine when I was drafted then joined the Navy instead.
One of my sis's don't have one and she's in her 70's now.

I use a debit card almost daily and not once did I need to show it. I have 4 different bank accounts and not a one of them required that I even show an ID. I was asked my SS number and that is as far as it got so most of what the excop said is bullshit, for me anyway.

Photo id requirement to vote has been shot down in most states who've tried to implement it and if you'll notice its almost always a republiCON who tries to get it on the books to begin with. 'Pukes' don't play fair its a simple as that. They cheat, lie and steal otherwise you wouldn't find very many in office from the east coast all the way to the west coast.

bank accts so I can go in there and make withdrawals? After all no id needed right?

And I'm the liar here...? Just reading what u wrote and I cant believe you dont have to present ID at your bank. Must live in mayberry.

The last person who seen it other than me was the lady who made it for me at the tag office. Haven't been to the bank in years either other than atm. Oh yes this is two different banks in two different towns too
When I move money from one account to the other I have a number that I give so they know who I am on the phone. One account is so people can't rip me off when I buy something online. I have a separate account for that and only put in enough to cover my purchase and a small buffer in case I decide I want to purchase something online after hours or on a Sunday but hardly ever do that.

I don't even have to show Id at the VA for doctor visits, all they require is the last 4 of my SS number.
I haven't had a social security card since way back when I first got it at 14, thats been gone for years and years

so yes you are full of it

Just purchased gas for two of our vehicles and a purchase at the store yesterday and swiped my card for all three of those and only one of the three has a clue who I was. You see I have to use a pin number for the card to work otherwise no deal, that works at the bank too, I have a pin number there too so no Id is required, pin number yes but Id no

you had to establish that somehow.. Did you just make it up and the computer somehow knew you were the right person??

Probably did it at the bank just like I did.

I'll tell them a cop told me my bank card PIN was identification and see how far I get.

go ahead and leave all your ID at home if it is so unnecessary.

especially if you live far away from where you need it.

And they do cost money. It might not seem like much money to you, but to a lot of people (the poor) it is a great deal of money. That's the whole point. It is designed to discourage poor people fromm voting, while making it easy for everyone else.

but what are we doing to help them get them??? Nothing, we just want them to be able to vote..F everyhting else they need a birth certificate or an ID for.

Dont get me wrong, voting is important but how are all these poor, illiterate, uneducated or whatever label is being used getting by financially???

Social security? If someone is on social security, they had to present a birth certificate to get it...at least that is what their website says:

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/applying5.htm

HUD housing requires ID:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/rental_assistance/phprog

Applying for SNAP in Illionois requires ID:

http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=33698

Anyway it would seem that the vast majority of poor people (who use these programs) would have some form of ID. The rest of them we need to help get an ID somehow.

The DNCC could easily divert some funding to do this.

just that it MAY be.

And even if someone had a birth certificate 25 years ago when they applied for whatever, they don't necessarily now. Expecting people to pay money for something so they can vote turns the voter ID law into a poll tax, which is exactly how it is designed.

Getting the picture yet?

I am on the fence regarding voter ID (leaning more towards opposing it), but struggle with the concept of paying someone social security without asking for their ID first.

As for Social Security, your Social Security number and an affidavit would be sufficient.

My uncle did and it was a HUGE, costly experience for him that took almost a year to straighten out (complete with huge tax liens from the IRS).

Those anecdotes inform the issue, but if it is a relatively rare occurrence then the onus shouldn't be on all applicants to jump through extra hoops in order to obtain or keep benefits. That's just bad public policy.

Sorry, but I think it is bad public policy to hand out billions (across all people and all programs) without verifying the people collecting the money are those that should be collecting it.

The fact of the matter is, verification is made all the time without using ID. They are two separate issues.

Hint: because so many people believe showing ID is a separate issue.

Because credit cards by design were meant to be as easy to use as cash? (Until about 15-20 years ago, both MasterCard and VISA prohibited merchants from requiring customers to show IDs at POP. Now they allow but do no require it.)

Have you noticed that the trend for credit cards is no signature required for purchases under $25 or $50? In an era with a lot of credit card theft why do you suppose that is? No ID, no signature and the large retailers are okay with that.

If you truly think these are small "anecdotes", there is not much I can say. With hundreds of billions stolen annually and billions spent cleaning it up, I don't see it as a "small" issue. Frankly, I am shocked that some people find showing an ID in exchange for trillions of dollars of aid (be it social security, medicare, etc.) so off-putting.

Last I checked, food stamp fraud hadn't maimed or killed anyone.

Which you apparently didn't even read:

What If You Don't Have All Of The Documents?

Even if you don't have all the documents you need, don't delay signing up for Social Security. You can submit any documents you do have. You can provide the missing documents later or we may be able to help you get them.

In many cases, your local Social Security office can contact your state Bureau of Vital Statistics and verify your information online at no cost to you. If we can't verify your information online, we can still help you get the information you need.

If you delay signing up, you could lose some benefits you may be due.

No, that is merely their excuse. They know their is an extremely, extremely tiny number of voter fraud cases each election, and those few are hardly one-sided. But it a nice excuse for them.

Every single study of voter fraud turns up trivial fraud or dubious voting. The real risk is from election fraud: officials barring access from legitimate voters, persons within the election system monkeying with the vote count, or hacking.

"I'm not getting why it is so hard to get an ID...."


Wouldn't the repeal of an unnecessary and unjust law with obvious intent simply render your question moot?

Of Constitutional lawyers. One of them (sorry i don't know
his name) has a brilliant solution to this problem if voter fraud is the real concern as the repubs claim. As he stated we all have smart phones with cameras. If necessary have the poll worker take your picture at the polling place and you sign an affidavit attesting that is you with your address. Then it is up to poll workers to prove otherwise. You have attested to your identity. They have the photo. Burden should be on government to prove otherwise.

I attested to my identity and address when I registered. I also sign the log book at the polling place each time I vote. That's plenty of certification.

He actually LIKES it when voting rights are restricted. At least he's up front about it.

Most people have some form of ID. Not all of us have a current state issued photo ID. I don't. I don't drive, write checks in person, buy liquor or go to bars, etc. I function quite well without a the current state issued photo ID that the laws requiring it demand. The only reason I would need to acquire one would be to vote if such a law were in place in my state. It would cost money for me to acquire the documentation to vote. It would be money spent for the express purpose to vote. How people don't understand that it is a poll tax is beyond me.