Good Information about tight rules on voter identification

The following post has some very important information about Indiana's voter Identification rules for the primary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/4/152726/6612/590/508945

These rules (recently upheld by the US Supreme Court) are much more restrictive than most other states. Among other requirements, the photo identication must have been issued by the State of Indiana or the Federal Government. University or college photo IDs cannot be used.

i was a "victim" of it this morning as I have dual residency in Ohio and Indiana, so I still have an Ohio drivers license. No good.

Lucky (?) for me, I am between jobs so i had time to go home, find a bank statement and go to the BMV, where I got a new Indiana ID card. But i was also lucky that i had my SS card with me, which I only recently found. My passport and birth certs are in Ohio still.

If i were a typical student, or just slightly less organized, or busy at a job, I would have been SOL.

Net there will be a TON of disenfranchised voters in this primary. A TON.

;-(

I was a legal observer today in Indiana. Indiana ID is free.

Why didn't you have an Indiana ID?

What's dual residency?

Did you vote in Ohio?

and no, i didn't vote in Ohio. but i could have. And still could have voted in Indiana with the Indiana ID I had to get today.

Why didn't I have an Indiana ID? Because I still own a house in Columbus Ohio.

It's not that hard to understand. I'm just like a lot of people who have reasons to commute between two states.

I understand it, but I don't see how it makes you a "victim". It doesn't make sense to me that you can vote in every state that you have a home.

So David Geffen can vote in 10 states?

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me that you have to show ID. You can't even rent a DVD without one.

I personally like the ID law.

Bring necessary docs and you can get one for free.

I doubt it disenfranchises many people at all.

Does wonders against voter fraud, though. (NOT an accusation, just saying...)

Glad you were able to vote.

Go Dems!

Renting a video or DVD is optional; voting is a civic duty.
Any obstacle that impedes one from performing that duty
should NOT stand. This "solution" searching for a problem is
serving the purpose for which it was intended---suppression
of voting by certain persons, minorities, the elderly and
the young.

In practice, it's just a way of doing vote suppression. Even Rokita had to admit he could not point to even a single case of voter fraud this ID law would have prevented.

Is it a coincidence that this new ID law came in conjunction with the closure of DMV branches in places like Gary?

I'm against disenfranchisement.

But requiring someone to get a free state ID (during which time, by the way, they are giving the option to register to vote on the spot) is not disenfranchisement.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Being forced to leave your house is an obstacle. Requiring people to register is an obstacle. Having the polls open during business hours while many people are at work and then closing them just as they get off work is an obstacle. Being purged from the rolls because you haven't voted in years is an obstacle.

And all of them seem more of an obstacle than requiring you have an ID that you can get for free.

Please stop.

This isn't a special "voting" ID--it's ID that you can use in all 50 states.

I had someone go get her ID yesterday from the BMV and come back to the polls and vote.

The only people I'll give a break on the ID issue are the invalid. I don't even see why it's a big deal for the simply old--take your old ass to the BMV and get an ID.

Voting IS a civic duty. And it's a duty that you can't do in Indiana without an ID.

So go get one.

P.S. You could even vote in the Indiana election with an EXPIRED ID so long as it had expired after November 2006.

That does not mean others are capable of same due to age,
infirmities or other valid reasons for not having such a
record. The present requirement far exceeds any valid
purpose other than placing an unwarranted obstacle to
the performance of ones civic duty.

That the rule presents an obstacle to the infirm, who can't get out to get the ID.

And that's problematic.

But doesn't voting itself present the same obstacle? You gotta leave the house to do that, too.

Look, I'm not married to this law, I just don't think it's unreasonable. If one really think voting matters, is it so bad that you're required to prove you are who you say you are before you're allowed to do it?

Excerpts from "The Court Fumbles on Voting Rights":
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29tue1.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=indiana+voter+id&st=nyt&oref=slogin

"The court has long recognized that the right to vote is so fundamental that a state cannot restrict it unless it can show that the harm it is seeking to prevent outweighs the harm it imposes on voters."

"It was supposedly passed to prevent people from impersonating others at the polls, but there is no evidence that this has ever happened in Indiana. It seems far more likely that the goal of the law’s Republican sponsors was to disenfranchise groups that lean Democratic."

The republicans in the state legislature reached into every billfold and purse in the state and tore up everyone’s voter registration card. And while there aren’t any cases of vote fraud based on ID there were thousands of cases of vote fraud from Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos.” Can anyone explain how a photo ID prevents organized voter fraud when the voter registration does not require that a voter declares his party?

I monitored a polling place in Hammond, Indiana Tuesday.

The precinct committeeman said that one of the voters always complains (the committeeman has worked 3 elections) because apparently copies of your signature are in the roll books. He insists that one of the signatures from a previous election is not his.

He complains every time he sees it. Allegedly, it is a very careful signature and his (like mine) is a scrawl.

Anecdotal, I know, but as a Chicago resident, I find the idea that voter fraud doesn't need to be protected against to be laughable.

Indiana does not even allow liquor sales while the polls are open, at least partly so that people can't trade votes for liquor. The chatty political insiders at my polling place said that it wasn't uncommon. And if you can trade your vote, why can't you go to another polling place and trade someone else's vote?

knows exactly who is voting if they cover their precinct
properly. That has always been the primary protection
against any voter fraud and should still be adequate
today. I realize this is a very mobile society but that
should not be the criteria for a law that makes performing
ones civic duty more difficult for those less mobile.
Have read a number of approx 25% of the population changes
residence in a year. Why should 100% of the population be
subjected to an inconvenience?