Voter ID
 

15 years ago, when my mother was 73 years of age, she went to the courthouse and got a photo ID, just so she could vote! If she could do it, others can as well - don't fool yourself.

To me, this smells of voter fraud and political manipulation.

True, but I think some folks are too lazy to bother, and if that is the case, I don't want them voting

15 years ago, 9-11 hadn't happened yet. It's a little more complicated now. A friend's birth certificate had the first and middle name switched. It was never a problem until after 9-11 and that person decided to get a Florida Drivers License. Long story shortened, it took nearly a year of trying to rectify the problem even though this person had titles, deeds, licenses, degrees, etc. with their name in the correct order. The solution was to petition the court for a name change. Nearly $500 was the cost.

However, perhaps those who are trying to change all of the requirements just before a National Election would like to facilitate removing some of the hurtles to the acquisition of an ID. Convenient locations, associates to assist them, transportation if that is a hindrance, etc.

Since, according to many, this has been a problem for decades (I don't personally see the problem), better yet, forget all that stuff, maybe a two to four year lead-time could be written into the laws - effective in November of 2014, 2015 or 2016. This would require compromise and working together. What's the hurry, do it right. I'm sure all reasonable citizens would find that a perfect solution. After all, everyone is concerned about voter fraud, aren't we? We all want eligible people to vote, don't we? Or does this make too much sense?

Xavier

Xavier: in all due respect how many of those confusing circumstances that you cite exist except on occassion for those legimate citizens. As to "what's the hurry", the fact is this issue has been going on for a long long time.

I am always curious as to why some folks seem not to be in a hurry to ensure we have a fair, clean legal and observable voting process?

Please the Democrats have a very poor and transparent argument. As a citizen of these united States I am not interested in have foreigners sselect my leaders.

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

First, I think this thread was the result of the FEDERAL government telling a STATE government not to require it, HOWEVER, your post sent me to do some research.

According to Wikipedia, the first law passed relative to this was in 2003 and there are now 30 states that have it. The Obama administration has blocked these STATE laws in 2 states....Texas most recently and before that South Carolina. It was done under the civil rights law...citing that in Texas "the state had failed to meet its requirement, under the Voting Rights Act, to show that the measure would not disproportionately disenfranchise registered minority voters."

Further "“Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver’s license or a personal identification card,” Mr. Perez wrote, “and that disparity is statistically significant.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us...to-id-law.html

It seems the Voters Rights Act..."jurisdictions that have a history of suppressing minority voting — like Texas — must show that any proposed change to voting rules would not have a disproportionate effect on minority voters, even if there is no evidence of discriminatory intent. "

Texas offered to give FREE ID cards, but the FEDERAL government ruled that was not enough. The government did NOT step in with the other 30 states..only these two and they get to make the call on whether you have the alleged past.

These actions are at the top of the NAACP and other organizations, so this is a bit more than simply what we are discussing here. It seems to me to simply add to the class and race warfare that exists today.

That could be true, but I really don't think anyone has documented the frequency of these circumstances. There are, however, legitimate figures for the documented cases of voting improprieties and I would dare bet they are smaller than the ones that deal with complications in getting an ID. The numbers are, in my view, remarkably low. It really doesn't matter. If we could agree that we want to ensure that all citizens are provided the opportunity to exercise their right to vote and not disenfranchise legitimate voters then we should be able to give them a reasonable amount of time in which to secure an acceptable ID. We will have solved the problem. Do you remember when the rules from traveling outside of our country were changed and there was an instant backlog of applications for passports. In some areas it was as long as 6 months. That was with only the travelers making applications. The drop-dead date for the new law had to be broken down into smaller implementation sections and had to be extended to a date that was much further down the road.

Have you ever seen a job vacancy notification put out to the public and then you notice that the application deadline is three days out. You automatically know that the job is fashioned for a particular individual known to the person doing the hiring. If the goal is to keep a certain demographic from voting, you give them an unrealistic deadline. If this has been a problem for decades, why have a short deadline? My Dad taught me that if you are going to do a job, do it right.

Xavier

Buggy - You repeating the lie that Bush stole the election from Gore does not make it true even though it has been said by millions of D's. The facts are clear. EVERY major newspaper in Florida investigated the situation in depth and EVERY one concluded that Bush had won the race. What was true is that Gore tried to have thousands of military absentee ballots thrown out.

Voter fraud takes a number of forms:

People voting in two states. A practice among people who have two residences, particularly common among college students in caucuses. Also engaged in by snowbirds who feel that have the right since they pay taxes in two different states.

Voting 'early and often', the long held mantra of the D political machines. Easy to do when no id is required.

Voting when ineligible to do so, underage, prior felony conviction, etc.

Absentee voting by residents of nursing homes - staff sends in for absentee ballots and fill them out with the residents having no idea that they 'voted'.

Anyone who looks objectively at what is happening can never buy into the idea that voter fraud is a 'minor' problem.

Obviously, these tactics you mention are only practiced by Democrats. Sounds to me it would be more of a Republican thing to do.

When I was an election judge in local, state, and Federal elections, we did not (could not) ask for ID. The voters had to state their address and date of birth as it appeared on the voter rolls. If not on the voter rolls, they did not get to vote.

Good plan Buggy; the Democrats (Chicago comes to mind) have lots of the dead on voter rolls and people to just say "that's me". It's an easy way to fraud.

The I.D. is a great idea to eliminate fraud. The only reason to fight it is for nefarious purposes. "Can't cash a check, but I can vote"; yeah, great plan.

For all that 'advocates' say against a voter ID plan (*any* plan), they're sure to keep the 'consequences' vague. In other words the dialogue goes like this:

Pro: "Voter ID will cut down on voter fraud!"

Con: "It's discriminatory - it'll disenfranchise!"

Pro: "Well, everyone has to have ID to cash checks, etc. - but we can make sure an ID card is available to everyone."

Con: "But it's bad! It's a war against the poor!"

Pro: "How so?"

Con: "It's just bad!"

Show me a person who does not have a photo ID and I will show you a:

minor child

wanted criminal

illegal alien

And any number of things that I'm sure you could add to the list.

You have to have a photo ID to buy cigarettes, Sudafed cough medicine, to collect welfare, to get medical treatment, to cash your check, to rent a car, to get on an airplane.

There is absolutely no reason not to require a photo ID to prove that you are who you say you are when you go to vote.

I cannot see any reason what so ever to be against the photo ID. If it does inhibit someone from voting it will in all probability be because of all the reasons I stated above or perhaps something you can add to the list.

The present administration wants to get as many votes as they can and they do not care from whence they come, as long as they get them.

Just the opinion

And a very sound opinion, at that.

just do it like the days of old....pass a law or make a rule and then enforce it. Those who do not comply please follow the signs to the exit.

And cut all the BS of why it favors one party or another or one class or another.

The permissive pacifism and bending over for minority and special interest groups is nothing more than politicians FAVORING a given voting block....nothing more.

Same lowering of the bar and looking the other way to get votes created illegal immigration...political pandering and subsequent lack of enforcement.

All the above = the watering down of America.

btk

Agree 100%.