"They don't require ID? But I could just go and vote as someone else...

....or someone else could vote as me in my precinct!"

This is a response I've gotten at least twice in as many days. What say you, DUers, to this question? What to tell these people? Personally, I've never been asked for ID. My name simply had to be on the list in my precinct. I register when I get my drivers license - and for that I have to show ID.

Anyone else?

...seems to be a good system to me. Banks use it. Credit card companies use it, etc.

on edit: our signatures are compared to a voter registration book...

Westchester County.

No ID required in any other state where I've lived either.

I used to be accountant. We work with control systems.

If some sort of proper ID was required UPON REGISTRATION, and our signature is taken then and then compared to when we vote - if that is good enough for banks and credit cards, why are we even entertaining any of these suggestions like there's some kind of problem with that system?

Has this been a problem?

I mean, is there some sort of rash of people voting who shouldn't have been allowed to?

We all know what the REAL agenda is here - make it harder for qualified people to vote.

Legally, your signature on the form is asserting that the information is true and that you have no barrier to the right to vote. Before motor voter, registration required a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship as part of the process and one had to stand in front of the clerk and sign the form.
Requiring ID is more common in the South, for whatever reason.

IMHO, voter fraud, in terms of ineligible people voting, is a minuscule problem. No one ever posts statistics on it. Local corruption used to involve padding the ballot box through casting ballots for the dead, but with modern registration systems voters can be and are purged from the rolls on a regular basis. In MA, they would knock your name off the voting list if you didn't return a state census form, on the theory that you no longer lived at that address. Some states update from Social Security death notices. Registrars are probably using other ways to update the lists too.


I think the real agenda here is not just to make it harder for qualified people to vote, it's part of the effort to make Americans comfortable with carrying ID and showing ID all the time.

is there some sort of rash of people voting who shouldn't have been allowed to?

You and I both know the answer to that question, it's ABSOLUTELY NOT. There have never, to my knowledge, been widespread reports of voter fraud like this.

We all know what the REAL agenda is here - make it harder for qualified people to vote.

They couldn't possibly make it any clearer.

match? i don't know what they would do then. (i should ask my kid--she volunteered as an election judge in march)

I'm a poll worker, and I work in the neighborhood I live in. It's surprising how many people I actually KNOW, plus we take signatures in a book with a copy of the sig already in it.

I can say with great confidence that in the last election in my district, every single voter was legit!

The only kind of ID requirement I would get behind is a card issued AS the person registers to vote.

We have to sign a book. We sign it and they
check it. I show my card so they can
verify the address and district info.

place actually got angry when I tried to show her my i.d. (I wasn't registered at that address) and I don't know what came of my vote. A few days ago, when trying to register at my new address, everything went fine and the person helping me was very friendly. The last thing she asked me was "You are not a felon, of course"? I said no, and she said "I know you aren't". and I said "No, you really don't do you"? We both laughed. But seriously how does one prove one is NOT a felon?

"not a convicted one"

I am an election Commissioner here and photo IDs are required.

When we were stationed in another state, my husband went to vote and was told he couldn't , he had already voted. That is when we became committed to required IDs.

Jimmy Carter is pushing for this as well. Have you read the Carter Baker report?

Carter-Baker Panel to Call for Voting Fixes
Election Report Urges Photo IDs, Paper Trails And Impartial Oversight

Warning that public confidence in the nation's election system is flagging, a commission headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of state James A. Baker III today will call for significant changes in how Americans vote, including photo IDs for all voters, verifiable paper trails for electronic voting machines and impartial administration of elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/18/AR2005091801364.html

Now if they can just get impartial companies to manufacture voting machines - but frankly I'd rather have paper ballots, federally standardized for the national elections - same nationwide - and no voting in national elections on local issues - strictly for Pres and VP - period. Then, they need to be hand-counted, the counting witnessed and verified.

Has changed of late - the new law requiring them here in Georgia is viewed as a major obstacle to voting. In his most recent "From the Carter Center" on NPR President Carter mentioned this. Many rural areas in our state lack reasonable access to the driver license bureau - and even in Metropolitan Atlanta the wait in the license bureau can impose unrealistic burdens on poorer & older citizens.
I have heard of people being told "you've already voted" - I suspect it is the product of sloppy poll workers crossing off the wrong name (I once had to prevent a poll worker twice from crossing off my brother's name on the list rather than mine) rather than any deliberate fraud on someone's part - a situation which would only be marginally helped by a photo ID.
We have to ask ourselves - and not just in ID laws, but all election laws - if the small gain a law proposes is worth the risk of disenfranchising a voter, any voter. I happen to believe that all voices are unique & special - and that THE VOTE is our voice, too precious to lose even one.

who has no picture ID and no birth certificate? Does she just get screwed?

Does she receive Social Security? Medicare? Does she ever expect to need a nursing home?

ID will be required.

My family didn't have one but they used the old family Bible and baptismal certificates and all had them before they died. (They were born in the 1800s)

A Social Security card is NOT a legal ID. Neither is a Medicare card. And neither has a picture on them.

No, she has no picture ID and no means of getting one since she has no birth certificate.

We have been on this since this past spring when the state of MO passed this ridiculous Voter ID bill. We have worked with Mom's state rep, her state senator and several other elected officials plus the local election office. My mother is a disenfranchised voter. She will not be able to vote in MO unless the law that was just thrown out last week really stays thrown out.

I can't even begin to list the time and expense my siblings and I have spent on this since June. Yes, this Voter ID law is discriminatory. My mother, who has NEVER missed voting since 1946, is one of the many disenfranchised voters.

No, not everyone has a picture ID or can get one easily.

BTW, my mother worked for a defense contractor for 40 years. She had an FBI clearance for that job. So she was good enough to buy parts for nuclear weapons but can't vote? Please explain how this is fair or just.

Thank you so much for posting this, proud2Blib... I wish that I could recommend your post! I hope that some eyes will open!

Maybe I should just start a thread.

Honestly, six months ago I would have said there is nothing wrong with showing ID to vote. But now that I have dealt with this first hand, and know what a nightmare it can be to get an ID, I am adamantly opposed.

Oh I forgot to mention the state says well my mom can just vote with a provisional ballot. But even at her age, and with the degree of senility she has, she knows that a provisional ballot is not official and it can be thrown out. She said "But if I never get an ID, my vote won't count, will it?"

... before it is recognized & acknowledged? And just what are we going to do about it at that point, when most of us will have been disenfranchised & will have no right to representation in this gov't 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'?

Unfortunately, people often can't seem to accept anything beyond their own (sometimes very limited) experience... they haven't personally encountered X, so X does not exist. Those people had better watch out, because X is going to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Have you read this one?

***** BLOCK THE VOTE ***** PBS NOW *****: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2175946

The video in the OP is a MUST SEE!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2197107&mesg_id=2197107

Thanks for the link. I will check it out.

Please do check out...

Block the Vote (PBS NOW - 09/01/06)

Video: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/235/video.html

Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/235.html

especially since I am being called a liar.

...and frankly, think they should be everywhere, or at least some form of identifying signature for comparison.
Why, with all the concern for voter and election fraud, would one want to leave such a window open, when it's pretty easy to close...sigh, my two cents.

local post office) and send it in. No ID check. I could register my two cats to vote, keep on hand copies of the fake signature I used, then send off for an absentee ballot for each of them, and mail it in. I think I could totally fake unlimited votes this way.

The system here is NOT secure from fraud.

We also apparently have had (in the past, not sure about recently) a major problem with non-citizens registering and voting. All they have to do is be willing to perjure themselves when filling out the registration form. This doesn't seem to have deterred them.

There has got to be a solution to this. I just don't know what it is. I am not inherently opposed to the ID requirement. Perhaps registration should require proper ID and physical presence of the registree before some official and then signature confirmation when voting.

I thought that when you register they check the info before they actually add you to the registered voters list?

just a form you mailed in. No verification of anything at all.

It's possible that now they have some sort of verification the first time you go to vote............seems I can vaguely recall something about no absentee ballot until you have actually gone to the polls once. But I don't remember if that was just an idea, or actually got written into the law.................

Well...Yeah...I could buy a false birth certificate...get another licence...get a credit
card...run up the bill and never pay it.....In Fact, it happens every day....So what do you want to do?... Have our arms tattooed with markings?I mean,Life..in General..requires
SOME trust from our fellow citizens or do you want to "do away" with Credit Cards because a few pricks screw the system????"

do you really think someone is going to spend all election day waiting in line just to vote twice? Lines in the city are 4-8 hours long on big elections. At MOST someone might be able to vote 3 times. And they would need to show some proof of who they are each time, just not necissarily a photo id.

most of the 'multiple vote' fraud would take place with absentee voting, which these laws dont even cover.

to register you just sign that the above stated info is true and you can MAIL in the registration card. In my area I could easily go and vote at ten places. The other issue is NOT voting in person but mail in ballots, ie. absentee etc. It's much easier to falsfy those, all you do is request one sent to the address on file.

You would think there would be hundreds of people in KC and St Louis who voted in 2 states. But there aren't. It's not a problem. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

And an address is not required. The whole argument that it's too hard to go down to the state office to get an ID is rubbish. If it's too hard to get the id (if it's free of course) then how come it's not too hard to go down to the office to vote? Some responsibility in life is just required, fair or not.
But to assume that one need not prove ones identity when interfacing with the government is nuttier than a rabid squirrel.

Missouri, where the photo ID law was just struck down

the problem here is that to get the required "free" state ID, you need to have a passport ($97), or a certified birth certificate ($15) and some other ID($various). Our Representative Ike Skelton tried to get his "free" state ID to vote using his Congressional ID, and was turned down. So its not really a "free" ID, and its difficult to get one, especially for the working poor who a) dont have the money for these documents and b) dont have the time to take off work and wait in the DMV all day just to get one. They tried to have a couple vans that could go to urban neighborhoods and nursing homes to issue free ids, but forgot to fund it.

Up here I believe you can get a free state photo id and all you need is your ss card or birth certificate and some other thing with your name on it (SS payment, mail, credit card etc). Very easy. But then things are often easier when your state is totally homogeneous and crime free.

For a photo ID, NOT A DL, just an ID card, you need the following:

Certified copy of Birth Certificate.

Notarized copy of lease or mortgage records.

Social Security Card.

At least one utility bill in your own name (phone and/or cable aren't accepted)

If you don't have a lease, which at one time I didn't, no ID.

If your bills are in someone else's name, roommate's, etc. (mine were in my landlord's name), no ID.

If you DO have a copy of your lease, and it isn't notarized, no ID.

If you have a simple photocopy of your birth certificate, no ID.

If you have a certified copy of your birth certificate w/o a state seal, no ID.

If you've legally changed your name and don't have all of the above in said new name, no ID.

I'm quite sure that there are a few hoops that this fucking P-O-S state makes you jump through in order to prove your identity to their satisfaction. Without and ID card, you can't work, as you can't cash your paychecks. Without an ID, you can't rent a hotel room. Without an ID, cigarettes, beer or wine are unotainable. And now, the Right wants to ensure that without an ID, you can't vote.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! STOP THE MADNESS! DISENFRANCHISMENT IS ALWAYS WRONG, NO MATTER WHAT THE RATIONALE!

they MUST be free. And convenient to acquire for everyone.

She is 81, no longer drives and was born at home so she has no birth certificate. Not everyone has an ID or can easily get one.

Was her birth never registered? Lots of babies born at home still had their births registered. If she was baptized as a Catholic, often the baptismal record can serve as birth record. I know, because my mom was born at home in 1916 and apparently her birth was not registered with the state, but her baptismal certificate always did the trick, including when she went to get a passport in the 1970's.

How did she get a driver's license in the first place? She ought to have needed some sort of proof of who she was.

Who knows what documentation she had to produce back then. Maybe none.

No her birth was never registered. The diocese cannot find her baptismal certificate. They think it was destroyed in a fire in the 1940s at the church where she was baptized.

kind of accommodations for people like her, who don't have regular birth certificates. I'd be inclined to start with your state's division of vital records, or whatever they call it.

My husband had an uncle, now deceased, born around 1900, who always claimed he was born in a particular local where the records were destroyed by a fire, I believe in the 1920's. He was actually born in Poland, and we've found him as a one year old on the ship's manifest when he arrived here with his parents. I do not know if Uncle ever bothered to obtain a passport, I doubt it. And I believe his claim of having been born in the Village of the Lost Records enabled him to get some kind of documentation which basically said, he was born there in a time period for which the records no longer exist. This uncle died about twenty years ago, and it wasn't quite the same issue as it is now.

I still think that a matching signature ought to be good enough for voting. The other possibility for your mom is to have her vote absentee ballot, or whatever they call it in your state. It may be that filling out the form for the mail-in ballot will require less b.s. documentation than trying to show up at the polling place.

Good luck. This is an example of how stupid the new voter id laws are, and your mother is by no means a rarity in terms of her situation with documenting her actual birth.

Special Considerations for Applicants Born 1930 or Before

NOTE: Missourians age 65 or older who are renewing a non-commercial driver license or nondriver license are NOT required to show proof of lawful presence. This exemption does not pertain to those obtaining a new license.

U.S. Citizens born 1930 or before who wish to obtain a new Missouri non-commercial driver license or nondriver license, and are unable to obtain a government-issued birth certificate, may provide the following:

* A certified "No Record Statement" from your state of birth plus two supporting documents (listed below). In Missouri, a certified "No Record Statement" may be obtained from Vital Statistics, the same agency that provides certified birth certificates. This verifies that there is no birth record on file.
* Supporting documents include, but are not limited to, military records, child's birth certificate (hospital records are not acceptable), baptismal record, insurance policy, Social Security Administration numident, school records, employment records, and Census Bureau records, etc. The supporting documents should list the applicant’s name, place of birth, date of birth or age at the time the document was issued. Each document does not need to have all of the preceding information but the department needs sufficient information to establish place and date of birth. For example, Military Discharge Papers stating that Mr. John Brown was discharged on March 25, 1945, would not be sufficient since the document does not include Mr. Brown’s place of birth.
* Fax the documents to (573) 522-9439 or mail copies to the Show Me Proof Review Panel, Department of Revenue, P.O. Box 200, Jefferson City, MO 65101-0200.
* A response will be provided within 2 weeks of our receipt of the documents. You may call (573) 751-2730 with any questions.
* All other "Show Me Proof" requirements for proof of identity and proof of residency still apply.


One other thing -- it maybe easier to get a passport.

The state didn't accept the documentation we sent.

Funny about the passport. Mom used to have one. She and my dad went to Europe with other WWII vets on the 40th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, which my dad fought in. But that was 20 years ago, my dad (who took care of everything like legal papers) is dead, my mom is a bit senile and we can't find her passport anywhere. So we looked into getting a duplicate. But they wanted a drivers license.

There is an alternative method.

all a person has to do your way is look at sheet that lays on table and can vote. there has to be some way. my husband refuses to use registration card and says law says driver license is good. always gets in battle cause they say, no we wnat registration

i say, here is registration, you dont need my license.

but i think they need some way to see

on edit i would be even more pissed if i went to vote and they told me i already did. who is to say one party couldnt vote all the names. nah.... you need something with your name on. even a bill with address and name, like utility bill

established "legal residence" (voting, state income tax, bought a house, car registration and drivers license) in 4 states. We have been active in politics those four states.

The only ID we ever had to show was when we did the "DMV Thing" (one stop shopping for drivers license, car registration, voters registration).

The best way to prevent fraudulent voting is to have "The Board" (the retirees at the long table who compare your signature with the signature in "The Book") be locals. In California they can be from anywhere in the county -- and they really don't know you.

Everyplace else they lived in the neighborhood.

When I was a kid election day was a "Big Day" -- and they had coffee and "ethnic pastries" (yum) at the polls. And "everybody knew every else."

Ok I will take the contrary position here.

Most countries, yes even Mexico... require a federally issued ID in order for you to vote.

I still remember the same arguments, I was 18, when Mexico enacted a whole slew of changes in the electoral law which led, among other things to a national ID and Proportional representation.

Was it easy for the two live in help to get the ID? Nope, but in the end they got it. Why? The government realized they needed to make changes to allow them to get it. Certified letters and other devices were used. And both have voted every since. They also got help from my parents, but they did. What is more, increasingly kids are born in hospitals in urban areas. After all according to the UN over 30% of the world's population currently lives in cities, and that number is increasing.. and it is disproportionately large in the US... where most folks do live in cities and the age of not having a birth certificate issued (South and deep south in the upwards of the sixties) has come to an end. Are there people out there without Birth Certificates? Yes, but they are far from a majority and I am positive the states will find ways of issuing these certificates, assuming the SCOTUS does not throw it out on the same grounds the Georgia law was thrown out this week in Georgia, (Unconstitutional since it is a poll tax).

As ranking as this may be, and as "obvious" as this is to keep people from voting it may have an unintended effect, and that is to clean up the election at a certain level.

As is I am asked to show proof of citizenship EVERY TIME I VOTE since I have an accent. I just make it a practice to carry my passport with me to the polls any longer, So I take a dim view of the fact that I am challenged every time, in a large city mind you... but my neighbors don't even have to show any form of ID. Is the local official trying to engage in voter suppression? Absolutely... making it a requirement at least in my view, might reduce this form of voter suppression. After all my driver's licence does not say I am citizen and would not be sufficient. (And yes you can quote chapter and verse to me about how illegal this is... I have no choice)

It is just that Americans take a dim view of any form of ID challenge... when it is quite simply standard in most areas of the world. The US (and Canada) are quire unique in NOT requiring any form of ID to vote... which has always been quite puzzling to observers. You require far more to buy cigs or alcohol, but god help you if you ask for an ID at the polls.

Could this be turned into a bad thing? Yes, anything can.
__._,_.___

I would say that their hypothetical (someone else could vote as me in my precinct) is possible, but to base legislation on unsupported hypothetical situations is irresponsible.

Is there research supporting massive voting under other names in recent elections? If there were, I submit that many people would support a version of voter ID, but I doubt there is valid research showing that trend. Without evidence of that sort of situation, we risk the very real possibility of excluding what would be valid votes in an effort to prevent a situation that we can't even prove exists.

masquerading as a plan to fix a problem that apparently doesn't exist. If the expressed justification for ID was true, then the same people pushing for ID at the poll would be pushing for an end to absentee voting. But since absentee votes trend R, we haven't heard a peep...

Personally, I don't have a problem with showing ID - voting is an important act, should be taken seriously, and is worth some effort - but before we take any action that may add to the difficulty of voting I want to see some evidence that we're actually correcting a problem. Particularly since any money spent on requiring ID might better be spent on adding more polling stations, improving poll-worker training, enhancing the trustworthiness of electronic voting, etc...

I think you nailed it.

"an attempt to limit Democratic votes masquerading as a plan to fix a problem that doesn't exist."

BINGO.

Once again, DUers debunk the Rep bu$hit!

If you want to implement this, do it a week after the election and that would be a fair amount of time.

This is about vote suppression.

loud enough, maybe no one will hear the murmurs about election fraud? :shrug:

Where I live, you need to either have your voter's card or show an ID and sign an affidavit. Either way, you've got something with your name and address on it. No one's going to be voting in my name unless they've gone to the trouble of faking the ID -- how many will do that? On a massive scale?

it would pale in comparison to election fraud. Sort of like raising a stink about your neighbor's meddlesome dog when you're living next door to a zoo.

My precinct has always been small, and I've only ever told my poll worker my name and address, no ID. This year our system goes to regional voting centers, which I imagine will cause a new set of problems, as well as create confusion and opportunity for true election fraud. I also expect just giving my name won't fly anymore.

Whatever happens with voter ID legislation, we can't let that topic coopt the bigger issue of election fraud. Too many sheeple will think we've put the shelves in order if we've made sure only valid residents vote. Meanwhile, the thieves are looting the storeroom.

but sign the registration book, and I think they're comparing signatures. They should be. And that should be enough. It's hard enough to register to vote in most places. There should not be a bunch of additional barriers to voting after that.

The worry that people would register and vote multiple times is silly. Yeah, it might happen. After the 2004 election the Kansas City Star did an investigation into people who were registered to vote and actually voted in more than one jurisdiction, and they came up with something like 5 or 8 people who had done so. And while those people were clearly breaking the law and deserved some kind of appropriate punishment (I'd suspend their right to vote for one or two election cycles and that's it), this was not a widespread problem. And I believe that all those registered and voting more than once were Republicans. Hmmm. I wonder why.

No ID required.

Kids in my town now register in civics classes.

..people is simply not an issue. It is a strawman.

In the last "election" no-one was prosecuted for voting as someone else. Not one.

This is a bullshit attempt to stifle votes, and is a back-door poll tax which is unconstitutional.

...I told someone that I'd like to see a comparison of DBT's erroneous voter cleansing lists - the number of eligible voters who were wrongly purged and not allowed to vote compared to the number of voters who voted twice, voted as someone else, voted in another precinct, etc. In other words, I'd like to see numbers comparing VOTE FRAUD to VOTE(ER) FRAUD. I bet the former would be the much larger number. I'm more concerned about that, personally - erroneous voter cleansing lists, hacked machines, fraudulently-handled registrations, voter intimidation, lack of an appropriate number or type of machines available to voters, long lines, etc. - than fraudulent VOTERS.

And be able to fake his or her signature. That's just TOTAL BULLSHIT.

stunt. I doubt they're voting for others than the dead. But people do register fake people, sometimes at fake addresses I can just bet this goes on in red rural areas of my state.

We don't sign anything or show ID...We just give our last name and address. :shrug:

They just compare signatures on those for I.D.

In my precinct, I don't get to vote unless I spend time
chatting with the polling place officials about how all
the kids are doing, who's getting out of college, who's
getting married, and everything else that has happened
since the last election. Everybody knows the officials
and they know (seemingly) everybody, and the photo-IDs
that *I* need are the latest pictures of my grand-kids.

And no, I still *DON'T* want to run for School Board. Can
you say "God-awful thankless job?"

It's a pretty good bet that, at least in this precinct,
I'd have some real trouble voting as someone other than
me, nor could someone come in and claim to be me.

Tesha

The fraud *I'D* like to see addressed is the game that
some of our "snowbirds" play where they vote both here
in NH and down in (say) Florida. They do one in person
and the other by absentee ballot.

If we're going to do something about a national program
to improve voter identification, I'll consider it just
a vote-suppressing smokescreen unless something is also
done to *ENSURE* that one can only be registered to
vote in a single location.

Tesha

I live in a bi-state community. You can be assured that if voter fraud was truly a problem, then massive amounts of people would be voting in both states here. But no, that does not happen. There are maybe 5 or 6 cases every election. That's not a problem.

This is a smokescreen. Everyone with half a brain knows that the problem is ELECTION fraud, not voter fraud.

No one else can go to my precinct and claim they are me and vote. It has never been a problem.

I have said this here before - I live in a bistate area. IF voter fraud was a problem, you would think that voters in this metro area and in St. Louis (and any other area that straddles two or more states) would be hopping back and forth across the state line to vote in as many states as they can. But it isn't happening. There are maybe 5 cases here every election. And in a metro area of nearly 2 million, 5 is NOT a problem.

I have been me and the only one voting for me...it is funny to see years worth of your signature, and how exact it looks from one year to the next...

why make it harder to vote?

30% of those that legally could vote choose to do so. 70% of all adults don't give a shit.

If you care about voting, it would be easier to GOTV (campaign); crime seems like a stupid way to effect the vote.

And to register, we have to send in something that proves residency. We used to have same day registration but that was changed when that Rajneesh cult took over a town in eastern Oregon. They also launched the first bio-terror attack when they put salmonella in a salad bar to sicken 750 people and keep them voting in a county election. Anyway, even after that, we haven't freaked out to presume everybody is a crook. I could not stand living in a place that looked on suspicion at literally everybody for everything. Pretty sick outlook on your fellow man for a bunch of God-fearin' Christians, but I guess that's just me.

the one on your registration card. Also how do you know who you want to be? You have to know a name on the rolls and then when that person shows up you are screwed.

but if they make it a law they need to give enough time for everyone to get one.