Voter ID = Jim Crow Laws? Discuss

[Oblong]

That's not all...apparently some people are required to bring their marriage certificate.

Bottom line is, the more bureaucracy you create between the voter and the voting booth, the more voters you are going to disenfranchise. You should have enough common sense to realize that.

If someone can register to vote, learn where their polling place is, figure out to get there... or knows the rules on obtaining an absentte ballot, then they've already navigated enough bureaucracy where doing what's necessary to get a photo ID shoudln't be an issue.... heck, I don't even know what I'd have to do to get an absentee ballot, or if I am eligible.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Scrap the whole damn thing and do elections by mail.

[MrDeeds]

That's not all...apparently some people are required to bring their marriage certificate.

Bottom line is, the more bureaucracy you create between the voter and the voting booth, the more voters you are going to disenfranchise. You should have enough common sense to realize that.

Huh? When you get married you receive a marriage certificate....no matter what color your skin is.

A fundamental role of government is to ensure fair and honest elections.

[pfife]

Huh? When you get married you receive a marriage certificate....no matter what color your skin is.

A fundamental role of government is to ensure fair and honest elections.

which is why the GOP's desire to use the power of government to disenfranchise legit voters is quite perplexing....

[ROMAD1]

which is why the GOP's desire to use the power of government to disenfranchise legit voters is quite perplexing....

not allowing people to vote multiple times is disenfranchisement? I consider it a reasonable measure to protect the vote for those who follow the rules.

[pfife]

not allowing people to vote multiple times is disenfranchisement? I consider it a reasonable measure to protect the vote for those who follow the rules.

I didn't say anything about not allowing people to vote multiple times. After all, in the message you quoted, I said "legit voters" which would, of course, not include those voting multiple times.

[John_Brian_K]

I have never understood the opposition to requiring ID. I guess my only concern is how tough is it to get a free state ID. If you can not afford one, you should be able to get it free of charge. I know you can request to have the fee waived, but it should be pretty easy as it is required in Michigan to vote.

It is kind of funny how it's the republicans that think gov't should step in and require further regulation on voting and the democrats calling for regulation to be thrown out the door.

I know folks that have volunteered on voting days and spent the day driving homeless folks back and forth from shelters to the voting booths and having to offer cigarettes to get them to agree to go. They feel they just 'helped to get out the vote'. I think they found a way to cheat the system. I doubt that requiring ID really is going to change too many outcomes, but I do think it will close down some loophole that someone has been trying to figure out how to exploit.

SOS -

Applying for a Standard ID Card

Visit any Secretary of State office
Provide proof of a valid Social Security number
Provide proof of identity, U.S. citizenship or legal presence and residency.
Pay the standard ID card fee if not exempt


Standard State ID Card

First (up to age 65) $10
First (65+, blind - see note below) free
Renewal (up to age 65) $10
Renewal (65+, blind - see note below) free
Duplicate $10
Correction $10

[ROMAD1]

I didn't say anything about not allowing people to vote multiple times. After all, in the message you quoted, I said "legit voters" which would, of course, not include those voting multiple times.

So you agree that simple measures to prevent multiple voting are fair and prudent.

[pfife]

So you agree that simple measures to prevent multiple voting are fair and prudent.

I agree that preventing multiple voting is fair and prudent. I reserve judgement on the actual measures used in attempt to achieve that goal.

[Oblong]

How about in the event of not having a photo ID, you sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are, and there's a photo taken for each person that does such a thing, and it's public record for any potential investigators.

[John_Brian_K]

How about in the event of not having a photo ID, you sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are, and there's a photo taken for each person that does such a thing, and it's public record for any potential investigators.

That would work IMO, but you know as well as I do no matter what measure of safe guards they put in place the conspiracy theorists (on both 'sides') could discredit or try to 'prove' it wrong.

You could have independent investigators checking each district (in the case the other side contests it) cross check the pics against the AFF's and someone can claim tampering or some other ridiculous charge.

[pfife]

How about in the event of not having a photo ID, you sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are, and there's a photo taken for each person that does such a thing, and it's public record for any potential investigators.

I'd be ok with that I think. I did have the thought of photographing people at the polling station.

I'd probably be ok with only counting those votes if the total # of them was greater than the number of votes between the winner and closest competitor.

[Gehringer_2]

How about in the event of not having a photo ID, you sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are, and there's a photo taken for each person that does such a thing, and it's public record for any potential investigators.

Taking the photo - or any other kind of biometric you like, the 1st time a person tries to vote and letting the registrar then track whether the person that shows up the next time, or even better, checking in real time if that person has already voted anywhere else, seems like both a more secure solution and it creates no burden at all for the voter. So if you can come up with that just sitting around on a message board why can't Republican elected officials who take this issue so seriously? I'd say it may well be a matter of motivation.

[TheCouga]

How about in the event of not having a photo ID, you sign an affidavit that you are who you say you are, and there's a photo taken for each person that does such a thing, and it's public record for any potential investigators.

That's what a lot of states without Photo ID requirements do already, minus the picture taken. If you don't have the proper ID, sign an affidavit and keep it on hand for further investigation. Then they give you something like 10 days to come back with the proper identification. It's a provisional ballot, although each state has different laws regarding them. If someone's going to vote 2 times, there's going to be multiple provisional ballots on hand signed by the same person, and it's going to raise suspicion.

Keep in mind, it's still rather difficult to commit voter fraud even without a photo ID, and there's not really much incentive to do so. You don't get much reward for succeeding, unless you can do it hundreds of times. Most people realize that voting twice isn't going to have much of an effect on an election, and are not willing to go through great trouble to vote more than once.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be prevented, but it does mean that it's doubtful that there's widespread abuse. Even without a photo ID, your name has to be in the registration book, and it gets checked off as soon as they hand you a ballot, and you can't vote twice. So if you vote a second time, it has to be with whatever identification other than a photo ID that is normally required -- and you have to be sure that person hasn't already voted or isn't going to vote later that day -- otherwise it will send up a red flag. So basically, if you're going to go in undercover and vote with somebody else's registered name, you have to know that person personally, have their non-photo ID, and know that they're not going to vote. If you really want to vote twice, you're better off just offering them a ride to the polls, rather than go through all the trouble and risk of committing voter fraud.

Basically, there's a very small opportunity to commit fraud in the first place even without photo ID. And there's very little reward for being successful.

Individual Republican voters may legitimately be concerned by the scary tales of "inner city Democrats voting hundreds of times under dead people's names," but that just doesn't happen much. But Republican politicians know for a fact that it's really not a problem. The only reason they want ID laws is because it will disenfranchise a segment of the population that they don't want to vote. With modern data technology, dead people and felons are quickly purged from the voter registration rolls, and with poll watchers from both parties challenging potential voters, it's actually not even worth the effort to vote multiple times.

[Gehringer_2]

That's what a lot of states without Photo ID requirements do already, minus the picture taken.

Keep in mind, it's still rather difficult to commit voter fraud even without a photo ID, and there's not really much incentive to do so. You don't get much reward for succeeding, unless you can do it hundreds of times. Most people realize that voting twice isn't going to have much of an effect on an election, and are not willing to go through great trouble to vote more than once.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be prevented, but it does mean that it's doubtful that there's widespread abuse. Even without a photo ID, your name has to be in the registration book, and it gets checked off as soon as they hand you a ballot, and you can't vote twice. So if you vote a second time, it has to be with whatever identification other than a photo ID that is normally required -- and you have to be sure that person hasn't already voted or isn't going to vote later that day -- otherwise it will send up a red flag. So basically, if you're going to go in undercover and vote with somebody else's registered name, you have to know that person personally, have their non-photo ID, and know that they're not going to vote. If you really want to vote twice, you're better off just offering them a ride to the polls, rather than go through all the trouble and risk of committing voter fraud.

Basically, there's a very small opportunity to commit fraud in the first place even without photo ID. And there's very little reward for being successful.

Individual Republican voters may legitimately be concerned by the scary tales of "inner city Democrats voting hundreds of times under dead people's names," but that just doesn't happen much. But Republican politicians know for a fact that it's really not a problem. The only reason they want ID laws is because it will disenfranchise a segment of the population that they don't want to vote. With modern data technology, dead people and felons are quickly purged from the voter registration rolls, and with poll watchers from both parties challenging potential voters, it's actually not even worth the effort to vote multiple times.

There was story making the rounds last fall of how many thousands of dead persons were on the voting roles. Turns out you do the math it was about 4 months worth of regular rate of deaths (and federal elections are every 2 yrs!). Another example of lying with out of context large numbers.

[TheCouga]

There was story making the rounds last fall of how many thousands of dead persons were on the voting roles. Turns out you do the math it was about 4 months worth of regular rate of deaths (and federal elections are every 2 yrs!). Another example of lying with out of context large numbers.

When I lived in FL, I spent a lot of time just going through raw registered voter lists. Almost all had a phone number attached to them. I called thousands of voters and visited hundreds of addresses, and I only got one where someone else picked up (it was an elderly woman) to tell me her husband had passed away.

There's actually so many unregistered voters out there that it's a far better use of any person's time to go out and register those people, rather than try some shifty, risky stuff allowing them to vote twice. I single-handedly registered close to 50 new voters in the 2008 election alone. I could go out to the local discount grocery store/strip mall and just wander around the parking lot talking to people getting in/out of their cars, and register about 5 new voters per hour. Why would anyone waste their time trying to fraudulently get someone to vote twice? Furthermore, turnout rates in Democratic precincts in inner cities are very often less than 50%. You're better off canvassing to get people to early vote or vote absentee if you really want to score more votes for your side.

Legitimately getting people to the polls is far easier than actually committing voter fraud, and it's far less risky, with or without Photo ID. It might seem like a keen idea in theory, but in practice, it's really not necessary, and it's going to disenfranchise more legitimate voters than it does preventing fraudulent ones.

[shabba4detroit]

As someone who works as an election inspector, I find the half-truths and fearmongering on both sides of the issue to be laughable. Frankly, I want there to be reasonable precautions in place to ensure that only valid registered voters get to vote on election day. We have rules for a reason. Follow them. In my opinion, there are probably the right amount of precautions in place within the polling place. It's what goes on outside the polling place -- especially with the absentee voters and the practices of the politickers that need tightening up.

[TheCouga]

As someone who works as an election inspector, I find the half-truths and fearmongering on both sides of the issue to be laughable. Frankly, I want there to be reasonable precautions in place to ensure that only valid registered voters get to vote on election day. We have rules for a reason. Follow them. In my opinion, there are probably the right amount of precautions in place within the polling place. It's what goes on outside the polling place -- especially with the absentee voters and the practices of the politickers that need tightening up.

Shabba's first reasonable post in quite some time!!!

[pfife]

more gop love for democracy, rule of law, and constitution
Michigan Republicans have ILLEGALLY passed over 96% (546) of their bills under “immediate effect” | Eclectablog

[DaYooperASBDT]

Another meh for me. The party in the majority always tries to game the procedural rules to their favor.

[Deleterious]

Another meh for me. The party in the majority always tries to game the procedural rules to their favor.

Yep. What Maddow failed to mention:

Michigan House Dems sue GOP rivals | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

In 2009, the Democratic majority got all but two of the 242 laws it passed to go immediately into effect after then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed them.The next year, Granholm signed 383 laws passed by the House, 365 of which had an immediate-effect clause, Republicans said Friday.

[Oblong]

I thought Maddow was supposed to be one of the intelligent ones? You mean she's simply just another talk show host spewing misinformation to her gullible listeners? So much for the "liberals are generally" smarter meme...

[pfife]

Dtrain's quote didn't say whether the requisite number of votes was achieved for immediate effect, nor did I see it in the article. Pretty important aspect of the story.

I guess you guys aren't genuinely pro-democracy because your opponents allegedly aren't. Gotcha. Very principled. So much for the "conservatives love democracy" meme

[pfife]

I thought Maddow was supposed to be one of the intelligent ones? You mean she's simply just another talk show host spewing misinformation to her gullible listeners? So much for the "liberals are generally" smarter meme...

troll

[pfife]

Another meh for me. The party in the majority always tries to game the procedural rules to their favor.

which is exactly why those of us on the left think your voter integrity nonsense is nothing but gaming the rules for your favor. Glad we agree now

[sinister porpoise]

more gop love for democracy, rule of law, and constitution
Michigan Republicans have ILLEGALLY passed over 96% (546) of their bills under “immediate effect” | Eclectablog

Also this dated April 2 2012
Judge tells GOP to honor requests for roll call votes in Legislature | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

Lansing— An Ingham County Circuit Court judge has found Republicans who control the Michigan House of Representatives violated the state constitution by not recognizing repeated requests by Democrats for roll call votes.

Judge Clinton Canady III issued a temporary restraining order Monday afternoon compelling House Republicans in the majority party to hold recorded roll call votes when at least 22 Democrats request one.

Democrats in the minority party sued House Speaker Jase Bolger and the GOP leaders last week because Bolger or Speaker Pro Tem John Walsh, R-Livonia, would not recognize their request for a recorded roll call vote. The state constitution states that a roll call "shall" be conducted whenever requested by one-fifth of the House members.

"I don't see how the House Rules can circumvent the constitution that says they'd be entitled to a roll call vote," Canady told lawyers representing the feuding legislators. "Each citizen has a right to know — upon the appropriate request being made by members of the Legislature — how people vote on issues such as these."

[DaYooperASBDT]

Dtrain's quote didn't say whether the requisite number of votes was achieved for immediate effect, nor did I see it in the article. Pretty important aspect of the story.

I guess you guys aren't genuinely pro-democracy because your opponents allegedly aren't. Gotcha. Very principled. So much for the "conservatives love democracy" meme

giggle

[DaYooperASBDT]

which is exactly why those of us on the left think your voter integrity nonsense is nothing but gaming the rules for your favor. Glad we agree now

I bow to the liberal paragons of electoral virtue. Oh, wait.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pfife]

I bow to the liberal paragons of electoral virtue. Oh, wait.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's the issue w/ ACORN?

[chasfh]

Another meh for me. The party in the majority always tries to game the procedural rules to their favor.

Would it be "meh" if Democrats were trying to game the system?

Don't bother -- it's a rhetorical question.

[DaYooperASBDT]

What's the issue w/ ACORN?

Well I guess they are bankrupt now, but they used to have an awful lot of "quality control issues" with their registration drives, back in the day.

But truth be told, gerrymandering of districts is a much larger problem than fraud at the ballot box, IMHO.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Would it be "meh" if Democrats were trying to game the system?

Don't bother -- it's a rhetorical question.

If I was actually affiliated with a party, yeah I might give a ****.

[pfife]

Yep. What Maddow failed to mention:

Michigan House Dems sue GOP rivals | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com

I thought Maddow was supposed to be one of the intelligent ones? You mean she's simply just another talk show host spewing misinformation to her gullible listeners? So much for the "liberals are generally" smarter meme...

So, when you hear people say “both sides have done it”, that’s only true for the actual frequent use of “immediate effect”. However, what is new is Republicans refusing to allow Democrats to be heard on the House floor and for them not to be allowed to have the constitutionally-protected roll call vote.

Debunking the myth that it’s OK for the Michigan GOP to ignore the constitution because “Dems did it, too” | Eclectablog

[chasfh]

Republicans aren't trying to make it harder to vote, just like most democrats aren't trying to enable voter fraud.

I don't think this is true at all. Conservative politicians have always wanted to limit the vote to the people who will keep them in power. It all started with limiting voting to free white male landowners, and it was conservatives who fought against opening it up to non-landowners, non-whites and women, because all those groups were far less likely to vote for them. Conservative politicians are always trying to limit broad and wide-ranging political participation among the people because that's how they conserve power. It's that simple.

I as a Republican want legitimate voting to be easy, but I want it to be legitimate. I think there is a greater risk of fraudulent or more likely bribed voting than there is of people who truly want to vote not voting. I agree that free ID's should be available if a state is going to require an ID and personally I think both should be the case in all 50 states. If cost is not an issue, then there is no excuse not to get them. If transportation is argued, the same is said for election day so the activists from both parties would have to make sure they go to the places in the weeks before to make sure everyone that wants to vote has an id and offer transportation for those who don't.

If someone cares enough to vote, and an id is free, they will get one (and register to vote). If all someone wants is a free ride and some smokes, then are they really voting for themselves or for whoever is taking them?

You as a Republican may want voting to be easy, but your party leaders don't. That's why they are trying to exclude certain people not likely to vote for them by implementing measures they know those people are more likely to fail on.

You can say something like, "it's up to the individual to provide ID, what's wrong with that? I would do it, why can't everyone else?" And at first blush that sounds like the right thing, and that's a defensisble thought. But in the final analysis everyone knows, or at least hopes, that implementing this will result in fewer minorities voting. Of course that's what it's about -- why else would conservatives and their leaders push for it? Because there is no widespread "Chicago-style" voter fraud, either now or looming in the future, to defend against. Regardless of how many anecdotes are trotted out, it's a myth. And as a bonus, middle-aged middle-class conservative white people are eager for more rules they can show the authorities they follow, because they like appearing to be on the Big Team, and conservatives resent the idea that other people are accruing the same benefits without having to show they're on the Big Team, too.

[4hzglory]

Because there is no widespread "Chicago-style" voter fraud, either now or looming in the future, to defend against.

I could also argue that there is not widespread legitimate voters being turned away, at least not of people who don't have to be bribed to vote (and thus vote whichever way the people who are taking them tell them to). And this definitely happens with both parties as in our area it is the republicans taking people from the nursing homes to the booths.

To me, someone who doesn't really care about voting, being bribed to get out and vote and then given a suggested list of how to vote is just as bad and as much disenfranchisement to those who actually care about voting as is other forms of ballot stuffing. Obviously it is legal to give rides to voting booths, but if those activists had to go to those places a couple weeks before and make sure those people had id's, then there would be less voters who don't really care about voting, voting.

Voting is a right of everyone, but it is also a responsibility. As long as free id's are accessible, if anyone truly does want to vote, they will be able to do it. Obviously various workers are going to make mistakes, like the one who required a marriage certificate, but that was the workers fault, not the laws. Those persons that don't really care about voting aren't going to educate themselves and are more susceptible to the fears, twists of the truth, and lies of both parties to sway them one way or the other. Often both parties do twist the truth towards the most uneducated voters as unfortunately they know that a significant portion of the population falls in that category and winning those votes can often sway the election.

[chasfh]

I could also argue that there is not widespread legitimate voters being turned away, at least not of people who don't have to be bribed to vote (and thus vote whichever way the people who are taking them tell them to). And this definitely happens with both parties as in our area it is the republicans taking people from the nursing homes to the booths.

To me, someone who doesn't really care about voting, being bribed to get out and vote and then given a suggested list of how to vote is just as bad and as much disenfranchisement to those who actually care about voting as is other forms of ballot stuffing. Obviously it is legal to give rides to voting booths, but if those activists had to go to those places a couple weeks before and make sure those people had id's, then there would be less voters who don't really care about voting, voting.

Your statement here still pretends that people being bribed to vote in a fraudulent way is common. It also pretends that political operatives transporting people to the polls frequently constitutes fraud and bribery. Neither has been proven to be true. Yet, conservatives focus on this hypothetical situation in support of their argument because they can't promote the idea that what they really want is for fewer people to vote.

Until someone can provide evidence that "Chicago-style" voter fraud is a widespread problem, one that can be effectively dealt with by requiring ID to vote, the only conclusion possible is that it is not.

Voting is a right of everyone, but it is also a responsibility. As long as free id's are accessible, if anyone truly does want to vote, they will be able to do it. Obviously various workers are going to make mistakes, like the one who required a marriage certificate, but that was the workers fault, not the laws. Those persons that don't really care about voting aren't going to educate themselves and are more susceptible to the fears, twists of the truth, and lies of both parties to sway them one way or the other. Often both parties do twist the truth towards the most uneducated voters as unfortunately they know that a significant portion of the population falls in that category and winning those votes can often sway the election.

I don't agree that voting is a responsibility. I believe voting is a right, one I am free to exercise, or not, as I see fit, and the benefits I enjoy as a citizen are not diminished one bit if I ... ahem ... elect not to vote.

I do think framing voting as a responsibility is a very smart way for conservatives to promote the idea of creating additional requirements for voting, though. It makes people blame themselves for not being clever enough to follow through on those requirements, rather than blaming a system conspiring to make it as hard as possible for those people to vote in the first place. Very canny.

I also don't agree with the idea that people who don't care about voting are unintelligent and uneducated. Some of the stupidest people I know never miss a chance to vote in an election.

[4hzglory]

I don't agree that voting is a responsibility. I believe voting is a right, one I am free to exercise, or not, as I see fit, and the benefits I enjoy as a citizen are not diminished one bit if I ... ahem ... elect not to vote.

When I say voting is a responsibility, I should clarify that I believe if you vote, you have the responsibility to educate yourself as much as possible on what you are voting for. For example, when I vote, if I don't know anything about specific candidates for an particular office, I will just not vote on that position rather than pick one just because they have an R or D next to their name. Same with an issue, if I don't feel educated enough on it. It is not so much that it is the responsibility of everyone to vote, I actually prefer people who aren't educated on specific issues or candidates to avoid voting for those issues/candidates rather than just go by what someone they don't know tells them, or to vote because of the letter by the candidate's name.

And I don't mean people who don't vote are unintelligent or uneducated in general, I mean on they are uneducated on the issues or candidates. I know many educated and intelligent people who don't care about voting and like you know many who don't know anything about anything who vote on everything.

[4hzglory]

Also, how widespread is the issue of people who legitimately want to vote being turned away for lack of an ID in a state where free ID's are available? Like was said earlier, you need an ID for about anything, if they are freely accessible it is a very simple thing to take care of before the election. If someone is planning to vote and know they need to get an id, and the id's can be acquired at no financial cost (which always was, and earlier in this article the argument as to why requiring id's discriminated against the poor), then there should be no issue. The same people giving rides to vote, can make the same rounds a couple weeks earlier and give rides to get id's if that is the issue. I don't see it preventing wide-spread fraud, but I also don't see how having it prevents many people from voting who had thought about voting before election day.

[RedRamage]

It's pretty common knowledge in the political arena. Both sides realize these laws disproportionately affect the poor. Republicans are for it because it hurts Democrats -- not because they are actually concerned about voter fraud.

See, this is one of the reasons I sometimes find it hard to argue with you Couga. Can mention of voter fraud is met with dismissive comments about how it's not really a problem, you can't find any prove, there's no documentation... But then you throw out lines like "It's pretty common knowledge..." You seem to have no problem accepting something as fact if it supports your cause, yet you easily dismiss any thing as 'opinion' or 'propaganda' if it's coming from the other side.

Oblong's post insinuated exactly what I said. It's okay if it disproportionately affects minorities, as long as it does not directly disenfranchise them.

And there is nothing wrong with this, though this is not what you said the first time. The first time you said this:

So it's not okay to directly target minorities, but as long as you do it indirectly and passive-aggressively, you're in the clear in Oblong's book? amirite?

The first bolded statement says that disproportionately affecting minorities is a side effect of your goal. That's still not desirable, but it also isn't an intentional, racist action. You second bolded statement, quite passively-aggressively I might add, says that these laws are thinly disguised racists attempts to minimize minority activity at the polls.

[RedRamage]

Until someone can provide evidence that "Chicago-style" voter fraud is a widespread problem, one that can be effectively dealt with by requiring ID to vote, the only conclusion possible is that it is not.

As many other have eluded to...

Until someone can provide evidence that widespread voter "turn away" is happening because people are finding it difficult to produce a photo ID, the only conclusion possible is that it is not happening.