Photo ID's downsides for voting (what photo ID pushers don't tell you)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Op/ed

Photo ID's downsides for voting

WINSTON-SALEM -- Requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls sounds like a good idea - but it is everything we hate about government: a complex and expensive nonsolution to a problem that doesn't exist.
...
At issue is not "voter ID" but rather the matter of imposing photo ID restrictions at the polling place. There's no problem, in general, with "voter ID," providing that there are many options for establishing identity, as there are in Alabama and Missouri, where many types of documents suffice.
...
Currently 18 states require "voter ID," and eight states require "photo ID." These eight states, however, do not have a way to verify the ID. Someone determined to commit voter impersonation could simply use a fake ID. Obtaining fake ID cards is easy enough - kits can be bought cheaply. In reality, the most common and difficult to detect voter fraud happens in absentee balloting. Requiring picture IDs on Election Day does nothing to prevent that.

Legislators who wish to pursue photo ID requirements for voting must ensure that the law provides for free photo IDs and ensures that IDs are reasonably accessible to all eligible voters. The law must include sufficient voter education, outreach programs and poll worker training.

... more at the link
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/12/1045800/photo-ids-downsides-for-voting.html

[msongs]

1. ID is worthless when the machines cannot be trusted of verified nt

[Taverner]

2. An identification token is only as reliable as the database it sits on

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. There is no database - to check them against

Unless a state sets up a universal ID that ALL voters must have, with a database that has the phoot and bio info, and electronic poll books that can accommodate this data, then voter ID can't be verified.

If such a ID was set up (sort of like a statewide biometric passport card, it would cost a fortune and would be highly vulnerable to computer hackers. Any scannable ID is vulnerable.

So no matter how you cut it, this is hog wash and people buy it because they don't think it through.

[Taverner]

5. Exactly my point

[Curmudgeoness]

3. Ask the legislators wanting to enact this

how many cases of voter fraud have been proven. This is a non-issue.

The number of people who will be stopped from voting is substantial, at least from the laws I have seen written but luckily not passed. To get the ID, you would have to prove you lived at the residence that you are claiming. Proof would be easy from what they said. A utility bill, rent receipt, etc. Now imagine the number of elderly who are living in nursing homes, or with their adult children. No bills are in their names. No proof. No vote.

Tell your legislators who are so interested in this to deal with JOBS and THE ECONOMY and stop wasting time.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Obviously, the point of Voter ID is to suppress votes from minorities, students,

homeless people, and other rabble who are likely to vore for Democrats.

[Buzz Clik]

8. +1

[caraher]

14. Absolutely

Though in my state, Indiana, it's had some interesting unplanned consequences. When our law went into effect a bunch of elderly nuns who don't drive were among the first reported to be turned away from the polls, and a local veteran was not allowed to use his military ID. Still, I'm sure that's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people effectively barred from voting in our urban areas.

The other irony is that when our then-Secretary of State (now Congressman) Todd Rokita (R, of course) was in court defending the law against a suit brought by the League of Women Voters, he admitted that to his knowledge there was not a single instance of voter fraud in Indiana that the ID law would have prevented. But just last spring, a clear case of voter fraud emerged when Rokita's successor as SOS, Charlie White, voted in the Republican primary using an address not his own. So now we know voter fraud is real - it's committed by Republicans!

[Buzz Clik]

7. The new version of a "poll tax" is a downside only if you feel everyone has the right to vote.

It is not a downside if you think that it is to your political advantage to exclude from voting those who cannot pay.

[Historic NY]

9. Apparently they also expire too on a 4yr cycle isn't that convenient.

[nashville_brook]

10. k and r

[Helga Scow Stern]

11. There is a push for it here in NM with our new R sec. of state and Tihadist

Governor.
New Mexico is a state where a lot of people can easily be disenfranchised with these requirements.

[obxhead]

12. This is incredibly important people.

Move to VA and go get your new drivers license. Besides the BS wait watching 3 people work when the building is built to have 15, you need all kinds of paperwork. When you first walk in you go to the "info" desk where they check all your paperwork, give you a number, then you wait. and wait. and wait. Then you get to the window and they send you for paperwork you don't have.

I have yet to figure out wtf the info desk checking to make sure you have all the proper paperwork is for.

[benld74]

13. Thats what the GOP DOES BEST!

[cmd]

15. The Amish in Ohio don't have photo ID's

and they generally vote Republican. They (the Rep. legislature) just disenfranchised Holmes Co. Serves 'em right.