The Supreme Court has upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification…
Resolving a partisan political battle, the country’s high court voted 6-3 to reject a legal challenge by Democrats that Indiana’s toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law would deter minorities, the elderly and others from casting ballots.
The main opinion agreed with Republican supporters that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud and safeguard public confidence in the integrity of elections. The Bush administration supported the law…
The decision could have broad national significance because more than 20 states have adopted voter identification laws and other states are considering similar legislation.
The law requires a government-issued photo ID such as a driver’s license to vote in federal, state and local elections.
I really like that part about safeguarding “confidence in the integrity of our elections”. Everyone feel safeguarded?
If the purpose were to prevent a person from voting twice
I think it is to prevent an ineligible person from voting in the first place.
You don’t need a driver’s license from the state. All states offer official state ID’s. They look like DL’s. My sister never bothered to learn to drive for a long time. So she just got herself a state of Oregon ID. It worked fine.
It seems to me that asking someone for a photo ID is not a burden or a hinderence. Hell, you can’t even fly, take a bus, or a train now with out one.
Sorry about the length… I really didn’t think I was saying this much while I was typing it… š Go figure…
#6 – I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age that there are people who donāt have a picture ID.
Home owners in New Orleans are facing new difficulties receiving relief funds to repair damaged homes. It seems that some 20,000 residents don’t have title to their homes. Their grand or great grand or so on parents bought these moderately priced tract homes in the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s and have simply passed them on to subsequent generations for years, only without changing title… a process that is both difficult and cost prohibitive for many.
In many cases, families simply continued paying mortgages and property taxes, but just never had title transfered.
The point? It’s easy to believe that there are many Americans without photo ID… and they are citizens and they have a right to vote.
It may be no shock to you, but it is a startling blow to the head for most Americans, but the fact is that in the United States, we have poor people. I don’t mean they haven’t upgraded to a flat panel TV poor. I mean they haven’t upgraded to shoes poor.
They lack every social mechanism we take for granted. They are poorly educated, often only do menial odd jobs and rely on extended family networks for survival.
Let me say we weren’t born here to march in file, join the status quo, and care about all the minutia and detail of of a rich white America’s complex web of laws. For some people, the desire is to go day to day without starving and without dying, and if they enjoy something about life along the way… bonus.
I’m surely not suggesting these folks are making the politically aware decision not to participate in in the society and obey all our overly complex rules and regulations… I am suggesting that for some… getting a photo ID just isn’t on the radar. Maybe they legitimately can’t understand why they need a photo ID? And maybe, “because its the rules” isn’t the sort of answer that is compelling. It isn’t belligerent to not do something that seemingly offers no advantage.
So… these people are trapped in a cycle of poverty and I am not arguing that they shouldn’t be helped to understand how and why to do things like, for example, get title to a house… These poor people are homeowners, for crying out loud, who cannot take advantage of equity, if they know what that is.
What I am saying is that that is the reality of the situation. This poverty lives in the shadows of our world and thrives on its own economy of black and grey market bartering for goods and services, and mainstream life hasn’t offered a real incentive for them to improve their lot, and one might argue, often kicks them in the teeth when they try.
Until we work to change the plight of modern day Americans living in poverty, we can’t expect them to “tow the line.” In my opinion, Republicans are taking steps to disenfranchise the poor because the poor vote for Democrats. And the redistricting scandal in Texas several years ago is just one of the things that informs me that Republicans are not above it.
I don’t really have an issue with Photo IDs. But then, I have a photo ID, and I’m not living in poverty feeling disenfranchised.
No… I feel disenfranchised for entirely different reasons š
Reading through this thread. Number #16 (Daniel) made the best case AGAINST voter IDs.
I believe most āworking peopleā have a drivers license or at least a photo ID. Every job Iāve had (sadly, Iām not a billionaire or even a millionaire, so I suppose Iām part of the āworking classā) has asked for ID to accompany the W4 to prove legal work status.
Exactly so. And requiring the photo ID is designed to stop those WITHOUT JOBS from voting. See, they mostly vote Democrap when allowed to. So, the Repugnicans want to discourage them from voting. If you don’t think photo ID requirements will stop many poor people from voting, you’re not paying attention.
True, they can get the IDs. But, they won’t. From a practical standpoint, the idea is to stop the poor from exercising their rights.
#33 – OFTLO,
Please do not apologize for a lengthy post that is incredibly well written and makes excellent points.
#33–OFTLO==every rule has bad unintended consequences, can’t be avoided. As long as a rule has a legitimate end and the foreseeable negative consequences are dealt with, then we can all just debate the pro’s and con’s.
Is preventing voter fraud worth the disenfranchisement that will result? Its debatable. Should attempts to prevent voter fraud not be attempted because some folks will be disenfranchised? Absolutely not.
Do the honest best you can and make the system better for all identified concerns as time goes by. If not photo ID==what other/better methods should be considered?
You know, poor uneducated unconnected shoeless people might gain a sense of pride if they got one of them photo ID voter cards? Why assume they are helpless?
Voters should provide proof they didn’t vote to re-elect the worst president in US history.
At the very least, these voters should voluntarily recuse themselves for a couple of elections to contemplate what pathetically horrible political judgment they have.
#37–Greg==I like that. First good idea in a few days. Vote for the wrong person and you lose your vote in the next cycle. That would get people paying more attention to the candidates.
Excellent!!
#33 – Great post, OFTLO. Even though I think you’re a dick much of the time, that was an excellent post. Thanks.
#36 – bobbo,
Do we have statistics on the relative numbers of illegal votes versus legal votes that would be prevented by the scheme? Let’s go for the low hanging fruit here. The real problem is machines that can’t be verified creating -19,000 votes for Al Gore and other horrifically bad offenses. Election officials tampering with results in Ohio (and being arrested for it, so I’m not making this up). Let’s pick the easy fruit. Let’s get a paper trail for all voting machines first. Then, if we still have real problems we can talk about whose rights we’re going to take away.
Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s stop counting some votes 3.8 times. There is no reason why some people should get to walk into the booth 3.8 times as many times as others.
Right now, we count votes this way.
Every time a person in Wyoming goes to a voting booth, they are allowed to walk out and walk back in to vote a total of 3.8 times as many times as a person from California.
If anyone thinks that wording it as 3.8 times the electoral college votes per capita is any different, please go back to your math class. You missed something important.
And then, go to a dictionary and look up democracy.
I like the idea that this decision creates a defacto Poll Tax – now the ACLU should sue Indiana to create FREE VOTER ID CARDS and pay for all the costs !!! Then they might be careful what they wish for !!!
#40–Scott==low hanging fruit should always be picked, committed fraud should always be investigated and prosecuted, a paper trail should be mandatory.
Then we should look at ways to prevent voter fraud while minimizing disenfranchisement.
We agree on everything?===so let me quibble.
I don’t think uneducated illiterate shoeless ID less citizens losing their vote is any issue at all. I don’t think anyone should assume they vote their own interest, nor democrat or repuglican. Including such votes are not what I would call necessary or even appropriate for a meaningfull democracy.
In fact, I’m all for a literacy/knowledge test and if the powers that be had not corrupted that idea to intentionally disenfranchise the poor and minorities early in our Republic, I can’t think of one thing against it.
#43 – bobbo,
Sorry, I disagree strongly with your last two paragraphs. The problem with them is that voting is indeed a right. As such, we cannot limit it to the literate. It doesn’t matter so much how they vote, only that they absolutely must be allowed to do so. Many in this country are voting against their own self-interest. Many are voting against legislation their grandparents fought long and hard to win. Still, everyone legally entitled to vote must be allowed and even encouraged to do so.
Your last two paragraphs have actually convinced me more strongly of the intent behind voter IDs and have further polarized me against the idea.
#44–Scott==Good. The purpose of discussion is to weed thru good and bad ideas and reason why the conclusions reached are the best ones available.
When discussing what “should be” resorting to legal authority is a starting point and a reference but hardly ever dispositive.
The dialetic between unrestricted voting versus an informed electorate are carved in rock, your after careful consideration should be too?
I’m for whatever the majority wants.
#45 – bobbo,
I’m not always for whatever the majority wants. Democracy is not only one-person-one-vote majority rule. It must also protect the rights of the minority.
The “poor” you speak of always have a picture ID when they want welfare. you can not get it without one. Why is this such a burden for voting.
#45 – The purpose of a discussion on the Internet is to whittle away the mind numbingly dull hours we spend behind these fucking desks and not to be lectured to on the purpose of discussions on the Internet by Professor Pedantic.
Iām for whatever the majority wants.
To quote the timeless wisdom of heavy metal giants Black Sabbath during the era of lead singer Ronnie James Dio… if you are really into this, now is a good time to make the devil horn symbol with your hands, stick out your tongue, and screech while bobbing your head up and down in a wild gyrating motion
Close the city and tell the people that something’s coming to call
Death and darkness are rushing forward to take a bite from the wall, oh
You’ve nothing to say
They’re breaking away
If you listen to fools…
The Mob Rules
The Mob Rules
Kill the spirit and you’ll be blinded, the end is always the same
Play with fire, you burn your fingers and lose your hold of the flame, oh
It’s over, it’s done
the end is begun
If you listen to fools…
The Mob Rules
You’ve nothing to say
Oh, They’re breaking away
If you listen to fools…
Break the circle and stop the movement, the wheel is thrown to the ground
Just remember it might start rolling and take you right back around
You’re all fools!
The Mob Rules!
#46–Scott==I’m not “for” whatever the majority wants as much as I’m just willing to accept it. I have a few issues that I think my values are paramount, but mostly I don’t care if my preferences are legal or not==meaning I will follow the law even if I disagree and not feel any great umbrage my personal wishes are not being enshrined.
So, I don’t know what laudable value is really being advanced if some political operative goes to the local old folks home and buses a group of voters to the booth with instruction on who to vote for with extra jello as a treat.
The arguments are as I said==unrestricted voting or informed electorate. You can disagree. I accept the law but think some comprehension of the issues shouldn’t be mocked as unreasonable.
47–old waterman==interesting if true. No reason to doubt you.
48–OFTLO–whats with the repeated smears? We post pretty much the same. You being a better writer thatās all. Maybe I will claim greater emotional stability, but the underlying messages are often “twins.”
#49 – What do you think? You pissed me off.
#50–OFTLO==yea, and not the first or last time on pretty much the same issue.
Some people like being pissed off. Not me, its mostly a personal failure. I’d go into details, but being of pure heart, don’t wish to get pedantic and only piss you off.
So, the trick I would try is how to say the very same thing and not be offensive? Too hard for me.
Ok, I have a pedantic style. Never claimed I was perfect.
If there is actually a good argument for not requiring a photo id, it would be interesting to hear.
I’ve never seen one.
#28, I do believe that, and also that the issue just hasn’t been in the news. What we need is a major election that gets hacked big, then people will pay attention. Unfortunately, I think we’ll end up with something even worse as the fix, just as this current situation is a fix for the punch card ballots in Florida.
Note that Justice Stevens saw Daley’s vote fraud up close.
Great news. I love listening to all you ACLU card carrying libbies whine about it. Now illegals, and other criminals won’t be able to vote Democrat. Too bad.
#33
Arguing that the poor are so poor they cannot get a photo ID is simply not an excuse to allow a certain segment of the population to be free from proving they are whom they say they are. If the cost of getting an ID is prohibitive, then let’s find a way of getting it for them for people that really cannot afford it. If getting an ID is “not on their radar” then surely voting should not be either.
#34
You might want to re-evaluate your logic. You can get an ID without having to get a job. Therefore, if an ID is required to vote, you can vote without having to have a job. However, you cannot get a job (legally) without having an ID. Just because A implies B does not mean that B implies A.
#36
> Is preventing voter fraud worth the
> disenfranchisement that will result?
Given the type of people that would typically be disenfranchised, especially if we find a way of ensuring that anyone, regardless of economic circumstance, can get an ID, I would say that such a sacrifice is worth it. There are many factors that can “disenfranchise” someone to vote. There are too many issues to understand. You know nothing of the candidates. You decided to sit around house smoking pot all day. I can think of all kinds of things that can “disenfranchise” someone from voting. While we should strive to make it possible for anyone to vote, the voters themselves have to expend some effort to take part in the process.
#40
RE: Voter fraud vs. computer malfunction
Historically, I’ll bet voter fraud is far worse than computer tampering ;-> (Of course, that is the case because computer voting is a relatively new concept.) I agree that voting machine fraud is as severe a problem as voter fraud to this point in history and is likely to become far more problematic as we go into the future but that does not mean we shouldn’t try to solve both problems.
Poor people have to show ID to get alcohol, cigarettes and welfare stuff … I can’t see how they can’t do it to vote.
#56 – Thomas,
You and I often disagree. But, your arguments are usually better than this. This one’s pretty despicable.
Given the type of people that would typically be disenfranchised, especially if we find a way of ensuring that anyone, regardless of economic circumstance, can get an ID, I would say that such a sacrifice is worth it.
What type of people do you think should be allowed to vote? I thought it was a right in this country.
And, it’s not about being able to get an ID. I think we all agree that anyone can get an ID. Most of us also agree that many will not get an ID. Therefore, the people who do not will be disenfranchised.
You think that’s OK because they’re not your type of people. They’re not my type of people either.
And yet, I think they have the right to vote.
#52 – Hmeyers,
If there is actually a good argument for not requiring a photo id, it would be interesting to hear.
Iāve never seen one.
Bullshit in the extreme. A number of them have been presented here. You have either refused to read them or disagree with them. But, they’re here on this blog thread.
Choose to disagree if you like but I’m calling this post of yours total bullshit.
Now, if you want to pick some of the better posts on this thread and explain why you disagree, feel free. Just try to contribute something meaningful to the conversation please.
I don’t think maximizing the vote should be the goal. Indeed it isn’t how we operate right now. There’s a reason we have voter registration, among other things. Ballot security and privacy are also important.
>>I thought it was a right in this country.
No, Scottie –
From Wiki Whatever:
“In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally. There is no national “right to vote”. “
#52 – If there is actually a good argument for not requiring a photo id, it would be interesting to hear.
Iāve never seen one.
Then you are choosing to be willfully ignorant.
Look… I’m not saying that requiring the ID is definitely wrong. I’m not gonna get all fire and brimstone about it. I mean, after all, you must register to vote and when you show up at the polls, maybe it isn’t a big deal to say that you ought to be who you are.
But the evidence supporting so called widespread voter fraud is suspect and the ID law absolutely disenfranchises poor minorities, the homeless and the elderly. Now I know none of us are those people so we don’t easily identify with their plight, but those people are citizens too and absolutely do not lose the right to vote just because they live under hard circumstances.
This isn’t a black and white issue and its disingenuous to suggest that it is.