Voting Rights Act v New ID Requirements in GA

[wildeyed]

The following is cut and paste from a list I subscribe to. :scared: I thought the bottom bit was most informative, but it is all interesting.


Some very disturbing news coming out of the US Dept. of Justice that does not bode well for Voting Rights...

Friends,

The decision of the Bush Justice Dept to approve Georgia's new voter ID requirements sends a chilling message to voting rights activists: take nothing for granted regarding renewal of the federal Voting Rights Act -- and don't underestimate the capacity of state forces to disenfranchise voters. The League of Women Voters said Georgia's new law "will make Georgia the toughest place in the country for properly registered citizens . . . to cast a ballot in person."
<http://www.lwvga.org/documents/May2005factsheet.pdf>

Here's background from our allies at Democracy South and the ACLU....


From: Winnett Hagens
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 12:13 PM
Subject: Democracy South Voting Rights Alert US Dept of Justice Preclears New Georgia Voter Photo ID Law

All: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in a headlong retreat from full enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, took a long step backwards last Friday (Aug. 26, 2005) when the DOJ precleared HB 244, Georgia's new draconian photo ID requirement for voters. In 1994, a similar photo ID requirement in Louisiana was denied preclearence on the grounds that it would disproportionately affect minority voters who did not have a driver's license <http://www.votingrights.org/resources/?resourceID=32>.

This injudicious ruling will unquestionably hinder access to the ballot for untold numbers of Latino, African-American and senior voters in Georgia. It is far from coincidental that all of these constituencies vote predominantly Democratic. Indeed, Republicans were the driving force behind enactment of these voting obstructions. Pure and simple, this is about a naked partisan effort to cook the electorate to their advantage by making voting easier for their voters and more difficult for their opponents.

Broken law enforcement like this will send the message to jurisdictions in sixteen other states covered under Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act that onerous and excessive photo ID requirements for voting will not be opposed at the DOJ. This is a very deliberate decision to all but abandon Voting Rights Act protections for minorities when it comes to new access to voting obstructions. It is a blatant assault on the voting rights of minority voters that is every bit as injurious to minority voting as felon disenfranchisement. When it comes to the end result, is there a practical difference between suppressing the vote of minorities with a poll tax or obstructing minority access to the polls with insuperable photo ID requirements? We think not.

What's going on here is that partisans who cannot win the votes of minorities and seniors with policies that answer their needs are erecting barriers to their participation in elections. This deliberate attack on the voting rights of minorities and seniors cries out for exposure. Latino, African-American and senior voters, the the principal victims of this intentional law enforcement failure, should be reminded again and again of exactly who is behind this assault on their voting rights. The ACLU and others will resist this in the courts. We should be helping with heat from the streets.

Winnett Hagens
Executive Director, Democracy South
Information, Technology and Experience to Expand the Electorate
304 B 49th Street
Virginia Beach, VA 23451
www.democracysouth.org/www.democracymaps.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Levitas
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:32 PM
Subject: ACLU Condemns U.S. DOJ Decision To Preclear Georgia Photo ID Requirement


ACLU Condemns U.S. <http://www.votingrights.org/news/?newsitem=17>
Justice Department Decision to Approve Georgia Photo ID Law

August 26, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

Decision Will Discriminate Against Minority Voters and is Called "Highly Partisan"

ATLANTA - The American Civil Liberties Union sharply criticized today's decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to approve a new Georgia law that voting rights advocates say will discriminate against minority voters. The measure, H.B. 244, which was passed on March 31 and signed by Governor Sonny Perdue in April, reduces the various forms of identification that voters can use from 17 to six, and makes state-issued photo identification absolutely required in order to vote.

"This decision is extremely disturbing because H.B. 244, which will undoubtedly make minority voters worse off, is exactly the kind of law that the Voting Rights Act was designed to block," said Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project in Atlanta. "It is quite alarming to see such obvious political partisanship impact what should be a fair and impartial decision-making process at the Department of Justice. Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that the Republican-controlled Department of Justice would defer to a Republican-backed measure that will certainly suppress minority voters, the majority of whom vote Democrat," said McDonald who also cited the fact that the entire Georgia Legislative Black Caucus staged a public walkout in opposition to the measure.

According to the Voting Rights Project, which has brought more than 300 suits to enforce minority voting rights since 1980, the Voting Rights Act requires that any changes to election laws in nine states, including Georgia, as well as portions of seven others, receive clearance from federal officials before going into effect. Department of Justice officials waited until late Friday afternoon to issue their decision giving the green light to the Georgia law. "If this law is implemented, Georgia will have the most draconian voter identification requirement in the nation," said McDonald. "This isn't the end of the issue. We and others certainly intend to challenge this decision in court under state and federal law."

In numerous formal letters sent to the Department of Justice in recent weeks, dozens of civil rights, religious, labor and advocacy groups, including prominent legal scholars and other experts in voting law, had urged the Department of Justice to block implementation of the measure citing various data that they say shows the racially discriminatory impact of H.B. 244.

*/ */ */


MUCH EARLIER: Democracy South Voting Rights Alert - New Georgia Voter ID Law Will Disenfranchise Voters & Depress Voting

All: Without a shred of evidence that voter impersonation is disenfranchising anyone, Georgia Republican lawmakers, under the guise of protecting elections, have passed the most restrictive voter photo ID law in the nation. Forms of acceptable ID have been reduced from 17 to six. The law contains no voter education component to let the public know what forms of ID are acceptable and how to obtain them. According to the League of Women Voters of Georgia, the "legislation will make Georgia the toughest place in the country for properly registered citizens . . . to cast a ballot in person."
http://www.lwvga.org/documents/May2005factsheet.pdf By enacting the most onerous and prohibitive voter ID requirements in the nation, the new law will disproportionately impact two core Democratic constituencies in Georgia--over 152,000 GA voters over 60 without driving licenses; and, black voters in the state who are four times more likely than whites to lack a drivers license.

At the same time, GA lawmakers liberalized access to absentee ballots increasingly favored by Republican voters. Under the new law the state will drop a pre-existing provision that required a compelling justification for a grant of an absentee ballot. Unlike voter impersonation for which there is little or no evidence of fraud in Georgia, absentee balloting has long been a notorious mode of voter fraud in Georgia and elsewhere. Yet, under the new law, absentee voters are not required to provide any proof of identity.

The truth of the matter is that these changes in Georgia voting law were engineered by a partisan faction for the sole purpose of enacting permanent ballot access advantages for its supporters. Secretary of State Kathy Cox has pointed out that white Georgians are five times more likely to own a car or truck than black Georgians. The law will depress the vote of lower income seniors, blacks and Latinos who don't have photo IDs because they don't have cars or trucks. At the same time, the liberalized absentee ballot requirements will grow the vote of higher income absentee voters. There is a fraud here but it has nothing to do with voter impersonation. Pure and simple, this is about a naked partisan effort to cook the electorate to their advantage by making voting easier for their voters and more difficult for their opponents.

All across the land over the last decade, elections, especially presidential contests, have been tightening. Increasingly election outcomes will be decided by small margins. Republicans have played their hand in Georgia and the rest of us in the South need to take heed. Make no mistake about it, this kind of partisan election rigging masquerading as "election protection" is coming to your state soon. It's the "New Disfranchisement" and it must be exposed and aggressively resisted. It is certainly fair to demand from legislators contemplating such laws proof that voter impersonation is a real and verifiable threat to the integrity of elections. Available studies show that it is not (please
see: http://www.demos-usa.org/pubs/EDR_-_Securing_the_Vote.pdf). It can also be readily shown that new voting requirements like those in Georgia have a disparate impact on poor, minority and senior voters.

[robcon]

1. I disagree completely

Being requirted to identify yourself before voting is the most basic requirement there is. No more onerous than asking for a signature. It is not partisan in the least.

This should be part of voting reform in every state, IMO.

[jbnow]

3. Always with picture ID?

Non-drivers don't always picture ID unless there is some reason they have to get a state ID, not free.

Without education in what forms are acceptable or how to get them?

[wildeyed]

5. You can be required to identify yourself in a way that doesn't

disproportionately disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority voters. From the post:

Without a shred of evidence that voter impersonation is disenfranchising anyone, Georgia Republican lawmakers, under the guise of protecting elections, have passed the most restrictive voter photo ID law in the nation. Forms of acceptable ID have been reduced from 17 to six. The law contains no voter education component to let the public know what forms of ID are acceptable and how to obtain them. According to the League of Women Voters of Georgia, the "legislation will make Georgia the toughest place in the country for properly registered citizens . . . to cast a ballot in person."
http://www.lwvga.org/documents/May2005factsheet.pdf By enacting the most onerous and prohibitive voter ID requirements in the nation, the new law will disproportionately impact two core Democratic constituencies in Georgia--over 152,000 GA voters over 60 without driving licenses; and, black voters in the state who are four times more likely than whites to lack a drivers license.

At the same time, GA lawmakers liberalized access to absentee ballots increasingly favored by Republican voters. Under the new law the state will drop a pre-existing provision that required a compelling justification for a grant of an absentee ballot. Unlike voter impersonation for which there is little or no evidence of fraud in Georgia, absentee balloting has long been a notorious mode of voter fraud in Georgia and elsewhere. Yet, under the new law, absentee voters are not required to provide any proof of identity.


I have done GOTV work with homeless and residents of residential programs (nearly 100% democrats I might add), and trust me, this law, were it enacted in my state would make it completely impossible for those groups to vote. And they need a voice in the political process more than most. Many poor simply don't have a picture ID. There needs to be alternative was for them to identify themselves at the polls.

[Village Idiot]

9. I Agree whole heartedly - NO ID, NO VOTE!

This will COMPLETELY KILL the main complaint that ReThuglicans have regarding voter fraud...

Now, if they can only DO SOMETHING about fraudulent e-Voting machines!!!

[wildeyed]

16. Do something about the fraudulent machines

but it is ok to disenfranchise poor an minority voters? I mean really, what's the diff? It's all cheating. Why is one more acceptable than another?

The main complaint that repugs have about voter fraud is false. They know it is false. Why should we answer that complaint? I am going to hang tough, fight to protect these people's votes as strongly as I would fight to stop e-voting fraud.

[jbnow]

2. Good Lord, why not get it over with

and only allow registered republicans to vote and only have republican candidates. Make opposing bush in thought or past votes a felony and purge them all.

Sadly it occurs to me they would do that if they could.

[Claymore]

4. ...

Just curious, as a citizen of Georgia, I'd love to hear how others here would suggest we stem the flood of illegals voting or ensure that there isn't widespread voter fraud. If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

[wildeyed]

6. Voter fraud is much easier with absentee voting

than it is with in person voting. So first off, make it harder for people to cast absentee ballots. But wait, the repubs in Georgia just made it easier......

Second, I see no evidence that there is a "flood of illegals voting" or any widespread voter fraud. What I see here is a totally predictable move by repub law makers to disenfranchise minority voters.

[Claymore]

7. ...

There has been a rise in illegals attempting to vote here in the state...it's not exactly at crisis levels, but it is occurring. I can walk downstairs and get the stats from the Sec. of State if you like.

[wildeyed]

11. Actually, that would be interesting.

Does it reflect a higher percentage of 'illegals' trying to vote, or simply the same percentage, but a higher total number reflecting the higher total number of 'illegals' who now call the South home?

What ever the situation is there, we have to find a way to deal with voter fraud that doesn't disproportionately disenfranchise poor and minority voters. Requiring a picture ID makes it nearly impossible for many people to vote who have a right to vote, making it on par with a poll tax. We simply have to find a better way to deal with fraud. Plus the repubs have simultaneously made it easier to cast absentee ballots, a very easy way to commit voting fraud, so I am suspicious of their motives.

I am always somewhat suspicious of these claims of illegal immigrants trying to vote. I mean, they know they will get kicked out of the country if they get caught, why would they risk it?

[Bridget Burke]

30. I'd like to see the statistics, as well.

I remember California's Rep. Bob Dornan who claimed that "illegals" voting lost him an election.

Investigation proved him wrong.

[Claymore]

36. ...

I'm covered up in meetings the rest of the afternoon, but I'll try to go down there later this evening on the way out. The bulk of the state's agencies are all in the same office building next to the capital. You'd be surprised at the various statistics the Sec. of State keeps on voting and such.

[Silverhair]

8. I see nothing wrong with being asked for positive ID when voting. NT

[wildeyed]

13. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But there is something wrong with requiring picture ID for all voters. Many registered and completely legitimate voters do not drive, therefor do not have a picture ID. These voters are disproportionately poor, minority, elderly and Democratic. We need to have some alternatives so as to not disenfranchise those voters.

[Silverhair]

42. It says six different forms of ID are acceptable.

I haven't searched to see what those six are. So there are 5 alternatives to a driver's license.

Most states will issue a state ID card to those who can't drive.

[wildeyed]

43. Yes, apparently all of them are state-issued picture ID.

And picture ID costs money.

I did some quick research on the GA DMV site and it appears that you can apply for the non-driver's ID with pretty basic ID, stuff like a utility bill with your name and current address on it. Those types of ID are what we use in NC for voter ID for people who don't have driver's license. So why make them get the ID? I think it is to exclude people, mostly Democratic voters, from the voting process, not make the process safer from fraud. And if they were interested in stopping fraud, why make the absentee process, notoriously more difficult to guard from fraud than in-person voting, easier?

I remember being young. I moved all the time, my DL was never up to date. I didn't vote one year because of that. Clinton won big, so it was ok, but what if it had been Florida in 2000?

I also think that allowing this type of thing to go on say to young, poor and minority voters that the dem party does not understand them, does not care about them, and will allow their voters to be disenfranchised. It is shadows of Jim Crow.

From the post

It is a blatant assault on the voting rights of minority voters that is every bit as injurious to minority voting as felon disenfranchisement. When it comes to the end result, is there a practical difference between suppressing the vote of minorities with a poll tax or obstructing minority access to the polls with insuperable photo ID requirements? We think not.

[SoCalDem]

10. Simple solution.. GET THE PEOPLE THE IDs necessary

Spend the money on getting them IDs instead of on legal fees trying to fight it..

After people all have the IDs, THEN fight the legislation:)

Wasting precious time trying to delay the inevitable will only work against us..

I have long-advocated getting every poor person a passport. The last 15 years, and are a good "investment". they PROVE who you are, and also prove your citizenship.. No one could/should be prevented from voting/registering to vote if they have a valid passport.

People see no problem spending $80 for video games for their kids, DVD players, Ipods, TVs, etc.. (yes I SEE 'poor' people buying these things.. it's what Walmart is ALL about).. that same $80 could "buy" voting rights andfreedom from major hassles for 15 years.. a bargain

[jbnow]

12. I agree with you but

don't like that last paragraph. Of course some poor people waste money, but that sounds like the people use food stamps for junk food line. Of course some do.

But I was very poor for a while, my son's dad died very young and uninsured, I was trying to finish college...
Heck I couldn't even afford food stamps. At that time I'd have to give them something like $70 and get $105 in food stamps. I never ever had a spare $70.
Of course they didn't have Ipods then but I can tell you I wasted no money, though I'd love to have pampered my toddler then.

Just very sensitive about that kind of comment.

But the rest of your post is good. Let's help everyone get IDs.

[SoCalDem]

15. I only meant that when people want something..ANYONE

rich or poor..they find the money for it.. My own mother was a prime example. She never had money for things like home repairs,car repairs etc, but she walways had the BIGGEST TV made or the latest 'designer dog' or stuff that was cool and she just wanted it..:)..She always claimed to be broke, but also always had TONS of gadgets and "stuff"..

The claim of "I'm too poor and cannot afford a passport" is what I hear whenever I bring this up:)

I actually think that the organizations who spend gazillions of dollars advertising and suing over the same issues over and over, should pay for them ..It would be cheaper in the long run, and more beneficvial too:)

[wildeyed]

18. I do GOTV with people in homeless shelters.

Trust me, there are no iPods there. I think I am talking about a different level of poor than you.

[jbnow]

21. The part about using the money

to GET passports before using it to sue I agree with.

That anyone can afford it I disagree with. I just looked and it is a total of $97, not including pictures. It's $55 processing fee plus $12 security surcharge and $30 for application execution fee.

And some people really, really couldn't afford that. It wouldn't be a choice between that or another luxury, it would be a choice between that or rent or food or medicine.
Don't consider the poor and wasteful, who might care less about voting anyway. Consider the responsible working poor, employer offers no insurance, rent is not controlled, damn kids keep eating...

And you could say they could save for it, but those kids also grow and need new shoe sizes and so on and the only extra money is what you were trying to save. And you have to fix your old car because your work shift doesn't fit the bus schedule and on and on.

It really can be tough even if you try hard.

[SoCalDem]

24. The organizations probab;y spend more than that cost per person

in advertising that may not ever been seen by the people who need to see it, and for the legal bills from expensive lawyers..

The repubes set up the hurdles.. Complying with the laws they set, may actually allow people into office who could CHANGE those bogus laws.. Go around the hurdles if they build them too high:) That;s all I'm sayin'

There are a million reasons why it's hard to comply, but if people don;t comply with the laws in place, they can't vote.. It stinks and it's not fair, but it happens EVERY stinking election.. and afterwards tons of money gets spent trying to "fix" things.. But it's too late then.. There are just MORE repubes in office, and the hurdles are revamped..

[wildeyed]

26. My organization has no budget.

We are a loose group of volunteers. We make copies of voter info which we pay for out of our own pockets. We registered over 500 voters for the last election and got voting info to many, many more.

Not to say that other organizations are not better funded and staffed, we are just a little, inconsequential group. But this law would make the work I did last year nearly impossible, which is what it is designed to do. And $97 per voter is huge, even for a well funded group. To get IDs for the people I registered would have cost $48,500. We did it for nearly nothing.

[SoCalDem]

27. That's precisely WHY the democratic party should NOT

dump all the 'grunt work' onto small organizations without the funding necessary to achieve the results they want..

MORE money needs to be spent on the ground where it will get results.. LESS money should be spent at the TOP, where it's all talk, and little action:)

Kudos for all your hard work..wouldn;t it be NICE to actually have the budget to do what's needed?? THAT'S where we need to staret shaking some money loose..

[wildeyed]

29. We didn't really need a budget.

That was what was so glorious about what we did. Anyone can do it. You just get the forms from the Board of Elections, read up on the rules, get permission to set up somewhere and do it. Democracy in action.

In the larger picture, you are right about the grassroots funding, though. We do DESPERATELY need a full time Democratic organizer here in Charlotte. The reason I got so into my own little project was because I couldn't find a direction from the local party. It would have saved me a few months of dithering if someone had just handed me the forms and said, this is how you do it, here is where you do it. I think the locals try, but we really need someone with a full time salary and some organizer experience taking care of business, not just patching it together with volunteers.

And again, $97 per voter is a lot of money by any non-profit standards. We need to find another, cheaper answer to the ID question.

[jbnow]

28. I said that too blithely

It would be an enormous cost to any agency and certainly to any low income person.

[wildeyed]

31. My fault.

I wasn't meaning to be snarky with you. It wasn't your post I was disagreeing with. Just getting a little carried away :hi:

[wildeyed]

25. $97 per voter would be a huge cost for a GOTV group to bear

and more than many people would be willing or able to spend. If it walks like a poll tax and quacks like a poll tax, must be a poll tax.

[wildeyed]

14. Well yeah, except this is the South.

People fought, suffered and even died for the right to vote, to get rid of poll taxes, ect. I don't think you can ask us to give up those right so blithely.

If I was GA, I would just do absentee with all the poor voters. It is so much easier than getting voters registered a month ahead, then finding everyone again, making sure they get to the polls. Turn the repubs own evil scheme against them.

[SoCalDem]

17. Not asking to "give it up".. BUT if the legislature passed the laws

dictating what ID is needed, then GET the ID first, and sue the daylights out of them later.. AFTER the election, and after people were cheated out of their vote it's a bit late to change things..

Repubes will find some way to exclude people from the absentee rolls if they want to.. It's almost easier, because with zipcode lists, they know exactly the areas to "deliver late" to or to "lose"..

Passports, registration, verification of registration..photocopy of registration./. and then head to the polls..

[wildeyed]

20. Poor and young people move a lot.

Some don't have a fixed address. So often, the ID is out of date almost before it is delivered.

I hear what you are saying, and there are groups who do get ID's for poor people. It makes their lives easier on so many different levels. But it is a huge job. I don't know how realistic it is. Probably best to do both. Fight like hell against the law, but also work on the ID's.

[SoCalDem]

23. That's why a PASSPORT is the best ID

:)

It identifies YOU.. a current bill can verify an address

[Bridget Burke]

32. It's hard to believe....

But some folks don't vacation overseas....

[Bridget Burke]

33. It's hard to believe....

But some folks don't vacation overseas....

[SoCalDem]

34. passports are good for more than that

they positively ID the holder as a citizen.. citizenship is an issue the repubes always try to question,., especially for people who may not speak perfect english.

I have never been challenged, but i know that some people are EVERY time.:(

[robcon]

19. I read the NY Times op-ed on this with siomilar sentiments,

and I think the opposition to this rule about photo ID haven't a shred of credibility.

The apocalyptic visions of those who oppose photo ID hide, IMO, some other agenda. The reaction is so over-the-top, predicting 'poll-tax' era voting suppressions, or predicting pre-Voting Rights Act conditions, over the simple request for ID, is startling and silly.

It's a simple, logical request: who are you? are you registered? have you voted before in this election?

Every state should have this requirement.

[wildeyed]

22. It may seem over the top if you don't do GOTV with these populations.

I do. I have no other agenda, other than to give people a political voice who are otherwise ignored. If I caught someone committing voter fraud, democrat or republican, I would turn them in. One person, one vote. No cheating. Follow the rules. That is how I operate.

It would be impossible for most of the people I work with to vote under this photo ID law. They are citizens, they deserve a voice. What is startling and silly is middle class democrats inability to grasp the challenges that a lot of these people face, and how that differs from their own insulated middle class reality where everyone who is anyone has an ID.

And as far as the question "who are you? are you registered? have you voted before in this election?", yes those are reasonable questions, and there is no evidence that a picture ID is required to answer them. I mean, we did managed to have election before pic ids.

[robcon]

35. I don't understand.

Your statement :"It would be impossible for most of the people I work with to vote under this photo ID law."

And your evidence that it would be impossible for people to obtain a driver's license or alternatively, get a photo ID, if necessary, as part of voter registration, is what????? If they can show up for registration, and sign the registration papers, why can't they sit still for a photo?

Your statement is, to me, an example of the patronizing and infantilizing attitude of many of those who argue that this is an impossible burden, IMO.

[wildeyed]

37. How 'bout instead of impossible to do, we say illegal to require?

All photo ids cost money, so they are, by default, a poll tax. Poll taxes are illegal.

You know, in many countries, voting is required. There is a fine if you don't. They manage to have almost 100% voter participation without any more fraud than we have in the US. So it can be done. We just choose not to do it.

Why is it here, in the freedom lovin' USA, we act like it is some huge privilege to vote and everyone should have to jump through hoops to do it. If you are a citizen, you should be allowed to vote. We should be jumping through hoops to make it easier for citizens to vote, not enacting draconian sanctions making it more difficult.

[robcon]

38. There is no charge for a photo ID.

I think you are grasping for straws, calling the photo ID a poll tax.

Your original post has a lot of worry-wart terminology in the quotes you use...

very disturbing news
a chilling message
a long step backwards
injudicious ruling
onerous and excessive photo ID requirements
all but abandon Voting Rights Act protections
assault on the voting rights of minority voters
will certainly suppress minority voters
the sole purpose of enacting permanent ballot access advantages for its supporters

You also added your own opinion in your recent post that this requires voters to "jump through hoops" to vote.

But there's no evidence at all of these unsubstantiated, hysterical and untrue claims. I consider any legislation sponsored by Republicans as a potential threat or partisan attempt for advantage. But this law is one that should be copied across the country, IMO.

[wildeyed]

39. There is a charge in my state.

Obtaining a North Carolina Identification Card:

Any resident of North Carolina can be issued a special identification card provided he or she does not have a valid driver license. An ID card, like a driver's license, is valid for a period of four to eight years, depending on your birthdate. Eventually all ID cards will be valid for a period of five years, beginning at age 20. The cost for an ID is $10.00.

http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/other_services/general/pictureID.html


And in GA it is even more expensive.

A identification card contains the same personal information, photo, signature and special protection against alteration and fraud as a driver license. The cost of the Identification Card is $20.00 for 5 years or $35 for a card valid 10 years.

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata.aspx?con=1747740603&ty=dl

Poll tax. Illegal.

And in addition, they require the following to get a non-drivers ID:

Applicant must furnish proof that he or she resides in Georgia and must provide a valid Georgia residence address. The following items are acceptable:

Utility bill with valid Georgia residence address;
Bank statement with valid Georgia residence address;
Rental contracts and/or receipts with valid Georgia residence address;
Employer verification;
Georgia license issued to parent, guardian, or spouse.

Why not just let the voter present one of these items to vote?

[robcon]

40. You seem to have a lot invested in the 'poll tax' meme.

You should have said the problem was the cost of an ID card, wildeyed. It's obviously a tempest in a shot glass if that's your problem. The law does not allow charging for voter registration, and your clients (none of whom could register or vote, allegedly) will have no problem voting. Can't charge for registering.

Problem solved.

[wildeyed]

41. Huh?

I am not following. First, according to you, there is no charge for an ID, therefor no poll tax. And now that I have demonstrated that there is in fact a charge for an ID, I am accused of creating a "tempest in a shot glass", whatever that is, even though I am correct.

They are not charging for registration. In NC (I don't know the laws in GA), you can register with no ID, but they require ID (picture or any of the items listed on the GA site are fine) to actually vote.

To be clear, I am not advocating NO ID to vote, simply a wider array of IDs, most of which are fine to GET a picture ID, so no diff really. If you want to cheat, you simply apply for a pic ID with fraudulent documentation.

The GA people are requiring a picture ID to vote. A picture ID cost money. Therefore it costs money to vote. That is illegal.

And again, why should voting be an onerous duty? Many countries manage to have almost 100% voter participation without any more fraud than we have in the US. That should be the goal, not making it harder for people to vote, especially when that serves no purpose.

And one last thing, they are not my 'clients'. I am not a social worker, just a fan of democracy. These are my friends and fellow citizens. I am just helping them get educated about voting.

[Silverhair]

44. This is alarmist hyperbole.

In modern society, some form of positive, up to date ID is a daily necessity. I get asked for my DL almost daily.

If you don't have a DL, then there are various state ID cards. Even if you are getting welfare, or other assistance, it come by check and you have to show some sort of ID to cash the check.

All this is requiring is that you show the same ID.

The argument that it is an expensive burden is garbage as those same extreme poor still have to have positive ID for other reasons.

[wildeyed]

45. It's not.

I have done the GOTV with all different types of people. I helped people who did not have picture ID, or whose picture ID was out of date almost daily in the months before the election. They were citizens, they were registered, they wanted to vote, they did vote. I simply went through the list of acceptable IDs with them until we found one they had. Mission accomplished.

This was a particular issue with a group of young women I worked with who were in a local residential program. They were mostly from other counties, but were in the program for over 30 days, which meant they were eligible to vote locally. So I registered them in-county, gave them a list of acceptable IDs. They voted. There was much rejoicing :). None of them had picture IDs, and under GA's law, they would have been unable to vote.

I have lots of stories like that.

Just because you can't imagine a lifestyle or circumstance different from your own, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.