Voter ID laws.

Post Reply New Topic

With this being an election year, this subject has inevitably been bought to the forefront of media attention. From what I have seen, these laws are not meant to cut down on "fraud", they are designed to disenfranchise non-GOP voters. Technically, these laws qualify as a Poll Tax and are in direct violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Supreme Court decision of Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections of 1966. In truth, Voter ID laws sound good on paper, but with the current laws that govern personal identification, they do not do so well in practice. Until State issued ID's and the paperwork needed to acquire them are free, these laws will remain in violation of the aforementioned act and decision and the 24th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Last edited by PM on 04 Sep 2012, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nothing new. The right pushes voter ID lows, wide ranging voter purges, tried to restrict voting hours in Dem areas of Ohio, tries to keep early voting limited, attacks and demonizes voter registration efforts, etc. A 90 year old WWII veteran was purged from the voter rolls in Florida. He made a big stink over it. At first they tried to eliminate 180,000 voters from the rolls down there. Almost all were Democrats. And they do it every time.

The GOP has been traditionally outnumbered by Democrats. They rely on a more motivated base to make up the difference and assume that any effort to limit voting won't harm their side. If they make mistakes they just count on the fact that a certain % of the working poor won't bother to fix it. That's a win for them.

In Boston and Chicago the dead used to vote early and often.

What is wrong with voters identifying themselves so their names can be matched with the registration lists?

ruveyn

Canada has voter ID laws. People that don't have ID generally have them because they don't need to have them not because they're not available to them for whatever reasons. In the end I don't think the issue amount to much more than election year politics, they might not actually stop much fraud and be an inconvenience but the accusations of 'voter suppression' don't hold much merit either. Considering the minute things you need an ID for nowadays, voting seems like a pretty glaring omission.

We don't have voter ID in Great Britain but in Northern Ireland, people have electoral ID cards.

As long as IDs cost money, the various voter ID laws count as an unconstitutional poll tax.

Since an ID is required to vote, then the State should provide the ID at no additional cost. It seems like the fair way of handling this.

ruveyn

That's exactly what's done here in Washington state.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Rights? You don't have any rights, shut up and get back in line.

In Minnesota its a $20 tax to vote if you have to get an ID, and even more if you pay for your license, I think it was $45 and a $23 renewal.
You want to ensure I'm real.
Fine, here's my birth cert, or my soc sec card, now give me a FREE voting card.
Now I only have the right to vote if I pay the state $20-$50 for that right.

Wait is it a right if I purchase the right?
That's like if all of the sudden they changed it to
"You have the right to an attorney, if you can afford to purchase one, if you can not afford one you will not be allowed to obtain an attorney."

89 accounts of voter fraud in the last 2 elections I think

I'm surprised that a purple state such as Minnesota would have such a law on the books.

I'm not sure if it does, though I'll be finding out soon as I intend to vote "for the first time" for Ron Paul.
I was speaking hypothetically however.

That is 89 they caught. even one voter fraud is too much if it can be prevented by issuing a reliable identifier.

Everyone who wishes to register in a given district should be issued an i.d. to vote if that person is proven to be a citizen of that district. Which requires that the person be a legal resident of that district. Illegal immigrants are not welcome to vote. They are trespassers. Some districts also deny the right to vote to persons who have been convicted of felonies or who are under probation or parole for a felony. That is a matter for the people of a district to decide. In general felonious criminals are not welcome to vote. They have, by their wrongdoing, forfeited the rights of citizenship.

Having said that, I propose that a voter i.d. be issued at no additional cost to anyone who meets the legal conditions for voting and who wishes to vote. The cost of identification should be borne by the tax payers of the district. It is a small price to pay for having a clean voting system.

ruveyn

Paying to vote? Jeez. Don't we pay enough for voting already - it's called the government? Eh? Eh? Amirite? And so on.

But yeah, if you're going to have ID, it should be free. In the UK, you have to register to vote - there's a fine if not. When election time comes round, they send you a polling card - a postcard, basically - with your name and address and a number on it. You take it to the polling station, hand it to the official, they tick your name and number off a list and hand you the voting card with your number on it. You put the mark on the card and put it in a box.

What's the prevalence of machine ballots in the US? I don't trust that s**t.

Everyone who qualifies and wishes to vote gets a voter i.d. The general cost is paid out of tax revenue, just like the cost of issuing drivers licenses. Everyone in the U.S. pays for the Motor Vehicle Office whether he drives or not. But a separate fee is not charged for a voter i.d. because that would be a poll tax which is forbidden by the U.S. constitution. All government functions have to be paid for by the tax payers. That is the nature of government. One of the proper functions of government is to see to it that trespassers (illegal immigrants) and convicted felons do not vote. Trespassers to not belong to the polity and have no voting rights. Convicted felons have forfeited their rights by their wrong doing.

In the old days, only property owners (freeholders) were permitted to vote. I preferred that system because a property owner or free holder has a stake in the system. He has a dawg in the hunt and a horse in the race. Freeholders vote. Freeloaders don't. But those days are past.

I think anyone who receives a check from any branch of the government should not be allowed to vote for an office holder in that branch. Why? Because people getting benefits will vote to increase those benefits. But that is just my cranky opinion. That is not the law. Too bad.

ruveyn

If your "cranky opinion" were put into action, just think how many elderly people on social security couldn't vote. Or disabled people (many of your own fellow Aspies included). How about persons serving in the military? Or the civil service? Or politicians themselves elected to office? I seriously doubt persons affiliated with the last group mentioned would let your idea fly.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer