93 Y.O. TN Woman Denied Voter ID...

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

that is the thing. a lot of people can't transport themselves. i am talking the poor who have no car. those on a fixed income via social security. you are going to make them pay bus/cabfare, make them stand in line at the license bureau only to be turned away for not having the proper documentation. can this 93 year old woman find her 93 year old birth certificate??? what if they have to go back 2 or 3 times? and how are they going to pay for the cost of the id? a new license is nearly $20 in missouri.

this is not as simple of a process as some of the people supporting these laws make it out to be..

Jason P wrote:

If you can transport yourself to a voting station, you can just as easily transport yourself to get a photo ID.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

This seems to be such a strange issue to get riled up about.

It would be simpler if private enterprise was distributing ID's.

Not to sound insensitive, but she has has 93 years to get this figured out.

dasvidana

Not to sound insensitive, but she has has 93 years to get this figured out.[/quote]


Well, it wasn't until recently that it became an issue. So, she didn't need to spend her 93 years on this ID problem. Prior to the new laws, a water or electric bill showing her address would have been good enough.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

Not to sound insensitive, but she has has 93 years to get this figured out.

attitudes like this will never solve any problem...and only serve to inflame tensions...

Newch91

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/11/01/p ... istration/

Voter fraud rare in Maine, elsewhere with same-day registration

Should we make voting as easy as possible so that more people will vote?

If we make voting easier, will many ineligible people vote?

When Maine votes on Nov. 8 on Question 1 — deciding whether to overturn the Legislature’s plan to end voter registration on future election days — it will answer these two questions.

In recent decades, Maine has allowed people to register to vote on Election Day, eliminating the need to register separately and in advance. It is one of 10 states that have so-called “same-day” registration, which will still be in effect on Nov. 8.

The theory is that voting is made easier by eliminating the need for advance registration, so more people will vote. Although many factors affect turnout, in the 2010 elections, average turnout in the “same-day” states was 48.3 percent, compared with 40.9 percent in the United States as a whole.

Encouraging voting is American public policy. For example, the federal “motor-voter” law allows registration when renewing a driver’s license.

While we know much about participation, we have few statistics on illegal voting, almost certainly because voter fraud is rare in all states. For example, an Ohio study of two elections there in which a total of more than 9 million votes were cast, found four cases of voter fraud. Polling data shows that a relatively few people are seriously worried about fraud.

Isolated cases of voting by ineligible voters have been found, but they amount to a tiny fraction of one percent of votes cast. A few illegal voters, some for innocent reasons, are not evidence of an attempt by a political organization to influence the outcome of an election.

North Dakota, counted among the “same-day” states, is the only state that does not require voter registration at all. People simply show identification or are recognized as local residents when they come to vote. The state says that, by keeping voting precincts small, officials are usually able to recognize their neighbors. Voter fraud has not been found, and voting participation is higher than average.

Maine is similar to North Dakota with many polling places relative to population, making it easier for election officials to spot potential fraud.

Aside from North Dakota’s rejection of voter registration, same-day registration might seem to be the most aggressive way to encourage participation by simplifying the process. But it is not.

Some countries require people to vote. In such cases, they use so-called “passive registration,” where the voter does nothing in advance of voting. The government compiles the list of eligible voters based on other data – residential information, tax returns and driver’s licenses. Under this mandatory system, Australia has around 95 percent participation. The voting law is enforced, and violators are subject to fine.

The “passive” system also works where voting is not required by law, such as in Canada. There, if the government has not placed a person on the voting rolls, the person may still register on their own. In this year’s elections, the turnout in Canada was 61.4 percent, well ahead of even the “same-day” states.

It is unlikely that the United States would adopt either mandatory voting or passive registration. Both would probably be seen as putting government into a decision that ought to be up to each voter. That’s why efforts are made to encourage people to vote here by, among other means, making it easy to register.

The Question 1 referendum in Maine is not only a matter of balancing two valid public policy concerns – encouraging voting and discouraging fraud. It is also a politically partisan issue.

Proponents of ending Election Day or “same-day” registration (“no” voters on Question 1) say that allowing people to register while officials are busy with balloting may allow unqualified voters to slip through and commit voter fraud. This is the Republican position.

Opponents, who want to keep the current “same-day” system (“yes” voters on Question 1) say that those who register on Election Day include young and other first-time voters, and low-income people – considered traditional Democratic constituencies. Not surprisingly, this is the Democratic position.

This debate has been taking place all across the country. In almost all cases, the initiative for imposing tougher conditions on voting has come from Republican legislatures. Although they have not presented specific cases of fraud, they appear to fear that easier voting access disadvantages the G.O.P.

Without any proven cases of voter fraud, Maine, with “same-day” registration, tied for first in the country in voter participation in 2010 at 55.5 percent.

As for partisan politics, both Maine and North Dakota went Republican that year.

cincybearcat

Honest question...

When voting is made just a little bit harder to do...have to have correct ID, etc.... you certainly are reducing the number of people that are voting. However, are you gaining a more informed overall voter? Someone that doesn't have the understanding to have the proper ID (and I'm not talking about an elderly person who can't stand in line) but then goes in to vote...what kind of understanding of the issues do you think they have?

All in all I think voting should be pretty easy. But I think having a valid, government issued photo id is a good thing.

cincybearcat

I guess I should add, we should be figuring out how to more easily get photo id's for people rather than questioning the need for a photo id to vote.

It only make sense to have a photo id to prove your ability to vote. Now let's see where this is really difficult and fix it. Issue a photo id to all recipients of government aid, free of charge. Seems easy enough. Would add cost, but I think it is worth it. Make them show this photo id whenever these services are used (welfare, etc.). Would cut down on people selling food stamps for cash to buy beer, would give these people a valid ID without incurring the cost, would help cut down on voter fraud (even if there isn't much of it, it would help)...win-win-win.

gimmesometruth27

there is not enough vote fraud to justify implementing this from a federal level.

if you want a card for all of those things do not call it a voter card and make it free and easy to get.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

there is not enough vote fraud to justify implementing this from a federal level.

if you want a card for all of those things do not call it a voter card and make it free and easy to get.

You didn't really answer the question, so I'll make it simplier... why isn't it reasonable to expect a voter to present a photo id prior to voting?

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

there is not enough vote fraud to justify implementing this from a federal level.

if you want a card for all of those things do not call it a voter card and make it free and easy to get.

You didn't really answer the question, so I'll make it simplier... why isn't it reasonable to expect a voter to present a photo id prior to voting?

it is reasonable to expect that, but lets talk of realities here. not everyone is going to get a photo id for whatever reason. wrong or missing documents, no transportation, fixed income, etc.

i work in a doctor's office, and people can not even bring photo id or insurance cards here to our office to see the physician.

if they can't get an id to see a physician, what makes anybody think that they will get one to vote?

the point is, barriers to voting are being put up when they should be being torn down...

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

there is not enough vote fraud to justify implementing this from a federal level.

if you want a card for all of those things do not call it a voter card and make it free and easy to get.

You didn't really answer the question, so I'll make it simplier... why isn't it reasonable to expect a voter to present a photo id prior to voting?

it is reasonable to expect that, but lets talk of realities here. not everyone is going to get a photo id for whatever reason. wrong or missing documents, no transportation, fixed income, etc.

i work in a doctor's office, and people can not even bring photo id or insurance cards here to our office to see the physician.

if they can't get an id to see a physician, what makes anybody think that they will get one to vote?

the point is, barriers to voting are being put up when they should be being torn down...

Right, I understand that. That is why you have to figure out how to make getting the ID as easy as possible and with help for those in real need. And I don't think you can change the requirements until you have thought about all the potential negative scenarios and developed reasonable plans to help. Doesn't mean you won't have some slipping threw the cracks though.

Isn't this just an anecdotal example...much like those the same people dismiss in welfare fraud threads?

Jason P

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Not to sound insensitive, but she has has 93 years to get this figured out.

attitudes like this will never solve any problem...and only serve to inflame tensions...

Inflame tensions???

Having a photo ID is about as basic as basic gets. Honestly, I don't understand how people in the US society can function without one. So many services, so many background checks, so many everything, rely on a form of identification.

How do you insure that someone is who they say they are if you cannot verify who they claim to represent?

By the way ... I'm Andre the Giant.

catefrances

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Not to sound insensitive, but she has has 93 years to get this figured out.

attitudes like this will never solve any problem...and only serve to inflame tensions...

Inflame tensions???

Having a photo ID is about as basic as basic gets. Honestly, I don't understand how people in the US society can function without one. So many services, so many background checks, so many everything, rely on a form of identification.

How do you insure that someone is who they say they are if you cannot verify who they claim to represent?

By the way ... I'm Andre the Giant.

Newch91

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opini ... fraud.html

The Myth of Voter Fraud

It has been a record year for new legislation designed to make it harder for Democrats to vote — 19 laws and two executive actions in 14 states dominated by Republicans, according to a new study by the Brennan Center for Justice. As a result, more than five million eligible voters will have a harder time participating in the 2012 election.

Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities. They insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters. Cutting back on early voting, which has been popular among working people who often cannot afford to take off from their jobs on Election Day, will save money, they claim.

None of these explanations are true. There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens — 11 percent of the population — do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.

In Kansas, the secretary of state, Kris Kobach (who also wrote Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law), pushed for an ID law on the basis of a list of 221 reported instances of voter fraud in Kansas since 1997. Even if that were true, it would be an infinitesimal percentage of the votes cast during that period, but it is not true.

When The Wichita Eagle looked into the local cases on the list, the newspaper found that almost all were honest mistakes: a parent trying to vote for a student away at college, or signatures on mail-in ballots that didn’t precisely match those on file. In one case of supposed “fraud,” a confused non-citizen was asked at the motor vehicles bureau whether she wanted to fill out a voter registration form, and did so not realizing she was ineligible to vote.

Some of the desperate Republican attempts to keep college students from voting are almost comical in their transparent partisanship. No college ID card in Wisconsin meets the state’s new stringent requirements (as lawmakers knew full well), so the elections board proposed that colleges add stickers to the cards with expiration dates and signatures. Republican lawmakers protested that the stickers would lead to — yes, voter fraud.

Other states are beginning to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, or are finding other ways to make it harder to register. Some are cutting back on programs allowing early voting, or imposing new restrictions on absentee ballots, alarmed that early voting was popular among black voters supporting Barack Obama in 2008. In all cases, they are abusing the trust placed in them by twisting democracy’s machinery to partisan ends.

81

wait what? they don't even check my id 3/4's of the time....it's great being a middle aged white guy.

fear4freedom

you need an ID for library books, alcohol, banks, beer, school, driving, insurances, passports, cell phones and utilities, to rent, to do anything.....so YES YOU NEED AN ID TO VOTE! YES YES YES How cant you?

You know how many people there are that sneak into this country??? Anywhere from 11-20 million! You need an id to vote ! PERIOD!

gimmesometruth27

fear4freedom wrote:

you need an ID for library books, alcohol, banks, beer, school, driving, insurances, passports, cell phones and utilities, to rent, to do anything.....so YES YOU NEED AN ID TO VOTE! YES YES YES How cant you?

You know how many people there are that sneak into this country??? Anywhere from 11-20 million! You need an id to vote ! PERIOD!

on what grounds? there is not enough voter fraud to justify these laws.

have you read this thread?

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

you need an ID for library books, alcohol, banks, beer, school, driving, insurances, passports, cell phones and utilities, to rent, to do anything.....so YES YOU NEED AN ID TO VOTE! YES YES YES How cant you?

You know how many people there are that sneak into this country??? Anywhere from 11-20 million! You need an id to vote ! PERIOD!

on what grounds? there is not enough voter fraud to justify these laws.

have you read this thread?

People are too scared about a National ID card but it would certainly help streamline things like this. If only we could be assured that the information wouldn't be used inappropriately...hahaha.

You could scan in in order to activate the voting booth. Your card could keep your voting history, which you would be able to check and verify that your votes were properly counted. So many things technology could do for us if it weren't for jerks.