I'm not against requiring I.D.'s at polling places....please

[Fountain79]

convince me otherwise. This is one of those issues I don't agree with the Democratic leadership about. I have to show I.D. to purchase a gun, buy cigerettes, alcohol, and for some credit card purchases. What exactly is the problem with requiring ID in order to vote for the highest elected office in the land? I'm not trying to start a flame war but I am curious what the contention is....

[LA lady]

1. I agree

Louisiana requires photo ID and we have no problem. I am an election commissioner, it works beautifully.

How can we ask to verify the vote unless we verify the voter.

I am sure we will be flamed!:-(

[Moochy]

15. "No problem"??? (not a flame just some analysis I agree with)

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=TN&pubid=1084

Laws requiring all voters to present very specific forms of identification before exercising their right to vote are rapidly becoming the voting rights barrier of the 21st Century. Last Friday, the Department of Justice approved a new Georgia law requiring every voter to show a government-issued photo ID. The Department of Justice was required to review the measure and “preclear” it because that state is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although many legal scholars and voting rights advocates had argued the Department should deny its implementation because it would lead to disenfranchisement of minority voters, the Department evidently did not agree. Indiana passed similar legislation this year, and several groups have sued the state on the grounds that it violates the Voting Rights Act.

< snip >

The difficulty is that the poor and minorities are least likely to own motor vehicles and possess a driver’s license—the most commonly accepted form of identification. Indeed, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice found that African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents. As a result, the Department denied pre-clearance for that state’s proposed photo ID requirement because it “would lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.”

[Fountain79]

18. Are there actual numbers/percentages of minorities who

don't have valid id's?

[Moochy]

20. requoting the article

"Indeed, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice found that African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents."

bold emphasis mine

[Leopolds Ghost]

115. Yes, there are actual numbers. They are real people. One is enough.

This is like someone who asked why disabled people couldn't just buy a premium access card (like an EZ-Pass, used to track consumer preference and provide police information on the whereabouts of passengers, and reward them with discounts in return for the information) in order to use the disabled access gates in the hypothetical scenario that the gates (as part of a "carrot and stick" policy to encourage adoption of the RFID pass) were RFID-only.

"I mean, how many disabled people are there who can't get an RFID pass?" they said. "I mean, they're fools if they want to pay the extra money needed for a regular token when the passes have steep discounts."

When it was pointed out that non-disabled did not have to buy an RFID pass, they missed the point that it was an issue of disparate treatment, as many of these things are.

"Is it really necessary to cater to the whims of a few die-hard late adopters who refuse to get an ____?" Is another common argument.

So much for consumer or civic freedom.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. You're beating your head against the wall

The reality is some Democrats and all Republicans don't care if poeople "too stupid to get a drivers license" are able to vote.

Hell, the fact that some states don't even issue non-driver IDs is not even a problem for them. They may not even realize non-driver IDs exist.

Even if non-driver IDs don't exist in Louisiana -- let me guess -- wait, don't tell me, do they? -- It would STILL be an unacceptable access restriction on an inalienable right.

If they can prove residency, you CAN'T TELL someone who shows up to vote without government-issued EAR TAGS that they can't exercise their INALIENABLE RIGHT.

Folks who "have no problem with voter ID" because "anyone should be able to get one, and if they don't, that's their problem, and if they're too eccentric to DRIVE A CAR and have to jump through hoops as a result, that's their problem" need to get with the program. THAT ATTITUDE IS THE JUSTIFICATION, THAT ATTITUDE IS THE VIOLATION of the rights in question.

[Moochy]

102. You are right

Racist classist bigots are a windmill and I'm Don Quixote. Fuck it!

I need a helmet. no more bashing heads with "curious" people.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. Did I mention the same justification was used in Katrina?

Not basing non-drivers out of the city was part of the "carrot and
stick" approach to encourage poor people to "get with the program".

In public administration, it is called "Demand Management".

You can take a course on it. What you will learn is that "Demand Management", i.e. "carrot and stick theory" is now being applied to regulate formerly inalienable rights, backed by common law (law of the commons, created by commoners over centuries, and the basis for Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence) predating the Constitution.

"There was probably something wrong with" anyone who didn't have access to a car, who didn't drive. That was what we heard over and over.

Then when they tried to exercise their formerly INALIENABLE right to WALK out of the city, they were shot at.

Congressional Democrats yawned. Some liberals even yawned!

Why, because if they had had a "right" to leave in an "orderly" fashion, they would have flashed the appropriate ID (demonstrating they were not a resident of the Warsaw Ghetto that is the 9th Ward) and be let through.

I have seen this phenomenon at demonstrations, too. The ID is like a Mastercard Gold card, a tool to stratify citizens and soothe the egos of those of us who are willing to conform to a state-driven corporate society of the future.

[question everything]

117. Make the government issue a photo ID for free

for each voter and this should end any worry about discrimination.

I agree with the OP

[Leopolds Ghost]

121. question everything. If everyone has an ID

Then there is no point to the ID.

The point of ID is to exclude and track people.

There is a whole industry of security experts in the DC area who will tell you that is the basis for the whole movement and mindset. And they agree with it -- strongly!! ACCESS CONTROL. They are the neocons. They attend security conferences at the Dulles Expo Center where they trade stories about illegal Blackwater ops and cracking the heads of protestors. In the DC area, the Security Culture which is based in the Dulles area actually run ads on TV and the Metro! "Control access through knowledge and information."

In the 1960s they passed out booklets to educate people on the purpose of zoning as it is tought to professional city administrators: "The purpose of zoning is to control who lives in your community and what sort of activities are allowed there."

[question everything]

127. Everyone - meaning citizens who have social security cards

every citizen has one, issued for free, right? After all, new born babies are expected to have social security numbers.

And when one registers to vote, shouldn't one prove that one is a citizen? If, a big if, there are indeed 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, do we really want them to participate in the democratic process of electing our Representatives and voting on ballot initiatives?

And, as mentioned above, if every one has a photo ID, if there is another hurricane, shouldn't a photo ID make it easier for the victims to get aid?

[Leopolds Ghost]

139. FDR promised SS would not be used to track citizens

(extept for census purposes)

the way "papers" were used in Europe by the Nazis (and later adopted by European governments just like the practice of bombing civilian targets, originally a war crime, was legitimized after WWII.) We fought two wars over this -- WWII and the Cold War (remember, one of the big objections to the Soviet Union was the internal passports people carried around, similar to Louisiana today with its exclusion zones.)

Don't forget, National Socialism was much admired by technocrats (mostly conservative, but also including some liberals) in the 1930s. Their repressive, "big government, state capitalism" was also coeval with the Soviets. It was considered the way states would be run in the future, which is why fascism and Stalinism spread unopposed for so long. If FDR hadn't been elected, we might have had either a revolution or a coup, followed by the adoption of many of Hitler's policies, including nationalization of key industries for the benefit of private profit. 20% of Americans even wanted us to enter the war on the German side! It was the decent ones who said, "don't turn SS into an internal citizenship document like in the oppressive modern states of Europe, where the state, not the people, have sovereignty." And so FDR promised not to :-)

[tyedyeto]

154. On my Soc Sec card it states:

"For Social Security and tax purposes - not for identification"

It is not now and never has been a form of ID.

[Captain Hilts]

157. That's why it has no photograph. But you need a photo i.d. to register to

receive your Social Security checks.

[Moochy]

122. wont end my worries... if the justice dept. ruled in 2005...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602504.html

A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents.

The Justice Department has characterized the "pre-clearance" of the controversial Georgia voter-identification program as a joint decision by career and political appointees in the Civil Rights Division. Republican proponents in Georgia have cited federal approval of the program as evidence that it would not discriminate against African Americans and other minorities.

This was a political move, intended to allow voter-suppression efforts to go forward, and folks on both sides of the aisle, well conditioned into the need for ID, will cheer all the way holding their precious ID cards.

[Leopolds Ghost]

114. I'm not against verification on Recognizance.

That's how it's been done for hundreds of years under common law, the Constitution assumes it, and I see no reason to change it.

Recognizance means:

I say I am who I say I am. Then you check the voter rolls and confirm that I'm registered to vote (somewhat of a tracking mechanism in itself, at least for campaign operatives, although less prone to abuse so far -- registration is mainly needed just to prevent people from voting twice. In the old days it was needed to determine who had suffrage and who didn't, before the 14th Amendment changed that by saying all citizens were entitled to the same rights.)

Saying I am entitled to get an ID just like the next person, with all the attendant mechanisms attached to that ID, is not the same as saying I'm entitled to registor to vote (for the purposes of making sure there is only one Leopold's Ghost in the precinct.)

BTW, I have (or had) an ID. It's probably out of date, I haven't noticed. I was EXTREMELY UPSET to learn that Amtrak now checks ID in order to take a train in this country. And what's worse is the ticket counter basically looked at me like I was a terrorist when I questioned it, thus proving my point.

He even said, and I quote: "This is America. YOu can't do ANYTHING without ID."

If my ID was invalid, it didn't matter, they merely glance at it. It was like Romans asking Christians to throw incense at altars and persecuting them when they didn't, even going so far as to tell the Christians "it's a mere formality."

People obviously have an irrational attachment to "badges" and other symbols of status that supposedly protect us from Jungian foriegn elements.

[MadMaddie]

2. I go both ways on this..

On the one hand ID's guarantee the right person is voting...


On the other hand there is cost involved, if someone who does not drive needs to have a photo ID they are going to have to pay for it, they will have to get transportation to get the ID, if they have kids they have to take them or find a babysitter they can't afford.

How to fix the second problem: Set up stations in neighborhoods to verify address and renter/ownership and create (Free) photo ID's on the spot.

Perhaps if this was presented by the Dems the Repugs will show their true colors...it's about disenfranchisement...

[Captain Hilts]

13. Yes, perhaps bookmobiles could do this or something, BUT...

how do you reach voting age without having any kind of i.d.? High school i.d.? Military i.d.? Driver's license?

When people register for the draft at 18, don't they have to show an i.d.?

How do you sign up to collect Social Security without a photo i.d.?

Even an expired i.d. is often valid for identification purposes if it has a photograph.

[MadMaddie]

21. They could use their birth certificate...

of course fraud could be used there also....

[Moochy]

23. Why address a non problem with a solution

Where is the evidence of fraud commited by individuals or organized groups trying to exploit this issue?

[Captain Hilts]

24. There are McVeigh types out west trying to screw up the voting system.

I went to a conference that discussed this.

Soon it will be retinal scan.

[Moochy]

31. McVeigh types? dead white terrorists?

Really? :tinfoilhat: actually this piques my interest, any links to this conference?

[Leopolds Ghost]

124. You don't seem to have a problem with this? n/t

[MadMaddie]

34. Because we have to think beyond the box... for every

solution that Dems try implement the Repugs will come up with something for why it can't work....

I dont' think people will commit fraud to vote but it should be addressed on how to prevent it.

[Imagevision]

37. They could use their birth certificate? -- Photo ID's is GOP plan

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. Re: how do you reach voting age without having i.d./Driver's license?

Well, as the Amtrak ticket agent told me when I expressed outrage
at being asked to prove my citizenship in order to ride the train,

"This is America. You can't do ANYTHING without ID!"

He looked at me with suspicion and bewilderment.

Then there are the well-meaning people who assert that every American should own property and a car, because those who don't suffer,

and if a little bit of pressure needs to be put on them to "raise them from the underclass" then that's just "tough love".

Plato and Jeremy Bentham would be proud.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Agreed. It's another step to prevent voting fraud. nt

[hobbit709]

4. The problem is

that some states passed laws that you had to get a SPECIAL ID and made it difficult for minorities and the poor to obtain them. I've used my driver's license more than once when I couldn't find my voter card.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

49. The IS no problem with voting fraud....

n/t

[Moochy]

5. Because it's not required when you register in Georgia

It's an undue burden. A judge decided today, it will go to the georgia supreme court. There is no evidence of individuals collectively participating in identiy fraud in order to vote. There is evidence that this is all another crass trick by republicans who clearly see the effect it will have in depressing the democratic vote.

End of story.

[MissWaverly]

6. What will the senior citizens do?

Many of them no longer drive, or they may be in nursing homes, does that deprive them of the
right to vote. They may have trouble getting around and they should have a say in elections
esp. when social security is on the list for a "makeover" and the drug plan has made
a lot of them unhappy. For someone that's 80 and in a nursing home, the MVA might as well
be on the moon.

[MadMaddie]

22. I thought about the elderly too.....they are a huge voting block...

and if they are disenfranchised....then they can't hurt the Neocons..

[Captain Hilts]

26. And, statistically, they don't have an i.d. problem. They need them when.

they register for Social Security, receive medical care, etc.

[MissWaverly]

32. yes, and they want to keep as many from voting as possible

since they are in the minority; their values are not the values of America; they have
made our government into a profitable venture for them. It's no longer about
public service but being served with super sized kickbacks and bribes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

125. Yeah, darn those elderly! (j/k)

Oh you meant the neocons. ;-)

[Captain Hilts]

158. It's not working. The elderly have a very high voter turnout rate.

Again, to register for Soc Sec. you need a photo i.d. To enter a nursing home, you need identification. To receive hospital care and Medicare/Aid you need an i.d.

This rule does not affect them nearly as much as people think.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

38. Most states will issue non-driving ID cards.

My mother has one. Due to age, she doesn't drive.

[Moochy]

44. And those cards are expensive on a fixed income

yet another solution to fix a non-problem.

Someone SOMEWHERE please cite the evidence of this vast army of identity fraud voters.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

73. In the states that are requiring them, they are free.

Yep, a free card, made at you own residence by a mobile state ID van is so horrible expensive for the poor. They just can't afford free. /sarcasm

[Moochy]

77. Not true.

Yeah those darn poor people. Law and order over all!

[tyedyeto]

80. Which states?

I truly want to know who gives 'free' ID cards and will go to your residence to hand them out.

I've never heard of that program here in AZ and photo ID for voting IS a requirement here.

[yodermon]

7. how does a homeless person get a photo ID?

This is a serious question.

[Moochy]

47. Homeless people are not advocated for much

round these parts. if you cant pay what rights do you have as a citizen?

:shrug:

Law & Order uber alles !

[Kutjara]

8. The difference between the ID required...

...for the purchases you mention and the kind of ID that's acceptable for voting purposes is that the latter requires 'proof of citizenship.' Most people use their driving licenses as ID for purchases, but only three states put the bearer's citizenship status on the license. Therefore, driving licenses would not be acceptable as voter ID.

Just about the only document that does have both a photo and the citizenship status of the bearer is a passport, and 75% of Americans don't have one. To get one costs $97 and takes up to six weeks to receive. How many people do you think are going to pay $97 just to vote, considering the miserably low voter turnout we get anyway?

Opposition to voter ID hinges on this: it will be a tax on voting for three quarters of Americans.

[ComerPerro]

9. You could potentially be turned away by a RW pollworker for having

invalid ID, as in, "I see here you are a registered Dem. Yeah, I see the license, but I don't think that's you. And it looks fake. Better luck next time"

[magellan]

10. If I'm not mistaken

I think the problem is that it must be a PHOTO ID backed by proof of citizenship -- in other words, to get the ID you have to provide a birth certificate, passport, etc. In a thread this morning I read that approximately 11% of Americans hold a passport (they're expensive), and how many of us have ready access to our birth certificate?

The upshot is that if this is the case, a lot more people will choose not to vote rather than go through all the trouble of proving their citizenship.

[acmejack]

11. I think the issue is That it costs money to get one

and is therefore a poll tax. If the ID is free and easily obtainable then I believe it is a non issue.

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. It is NOT just a poll tax. And Dems are wrong to see it that way

And I know many of them, Obama, et al. see it that way.

They should know the law better than that, but they see only what they want to see.

Like most religious people, they only use the text when it supports their way of life. When it conflicts with their quality of life, which is based on exclusion of the dispossessed, they make excuses like the Founders didn't intend for our hands to be tied from new thinking, societal change, progress, etc.

The issue is Disparate Treatment.

And to be clear, the Disparate treatment is between those who have ID and those who don't, or left theirs at home.

The day when Americans consider ID a part of their status as citizens, like ear tags and $5.00 in pocket or off to jail you go, is the day that tyrrany has arrived. The rest is lagniappe.

[ComerPerro]

12. If they require passports, what then? Most people don't have them

and they aren't cheap.

[hurricaneric]

14. A few problems I see.

For one, not everyone who wishes to vote necessarily has an ID, and they aren't free. Many elderly folks who don't drive and some Native Americans living deep in reservations just don't need any identification. Should that exclude them from voting? I think not.
Secondly, those prospective voters who would be excluded, most often vote Democratic, which means in today's tight political races where need all the votes we can get we could lose races.
It has been considered that this idea is just another tactic by Reps. to win elections.

[iamjoy]

16. I Wonder That Myself

why is it such a big deal? You need an ID for everything in this country. You can't open a bank account without photo ID. You can't even cash a check without ID.

I only bring up that comparison because I figure most adults work and get paid by check. Non-working Americans may get social security or pension checks, but still - it's a check. If you are a member of society, how can you function without ID? I don't mean that in a cruel way, it's just a question.

On the other hand, what's the big deal that some feel the need to require ID - has there been a rash of people claiming to be some one else and forging the signature to vote?

added on edit (read other posts made while I was posting this)

I think the crux is, what type of ID is required. If it is any photo ID - it isn't such a bad thing. If it is some sort of special ID, then I disagree. They should verify your citizenship when you register to vote and there should be a number of ways to do that, At least one shouldn't require the voter to spend anything more than a stamp to mail in the application.

[Berry Cool]

30. I think the business of acquiring an ID, period, is not that much an issue

or more is being made of it in some cases than need be.

For example, I don't drive. I have a non-driver's state ID. Got it from the DMV and that was not hard to do all on my own, as it was on the busline. There is no need for non-drivers to be disenfranchised.

The big issue with IDs is that people aren't used to having to bring them along to vote, so it's possible many will forget, show up at the polling place without one, be denied, and won't want to go back home to get the ID and return to the polling place and wait again. And then the ID just gives poll workers another thing whose authenticity they can challenge. You know--"This doesn't look like you," "This doesn't have your current address on it," etc.

Citizenship papers are a bigger issue. There are older people who came to this country and became citizens ages ago who now have no clue where their citizenship papers are. It's been decades since they ever needed to prove they're Americans. Try telling some woman who came over 70 years ago as a baby that now she needs to go dig up her papers.

[Moochy]

35. It's not the burden on the individual

it's the net effect it has on the voter turnout... Dont think for a second that republicans who are in favor of these new restrictions dont realize this.

Keep that in mind. It seems like everyone pro-id is just ignoring the negative effect it has on voter turnout.

Law and order uber alles uber alles!!

[iamjoy]

45. They Can Challenge Anyway

they can challenge your right to vote, etc even w/o ID requirements.

[Moochy]

48. Yeah so why fight it?

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

128. "You need an ID for anything in this country."

"This is AMERICA." I rest my case. :scared:

And who made those rules? Corporations, in partnership with the
Security Culture that seeks to promote a cashless Security State
where the rights of those of us without dog tags are not protected.

And no, I'm not a conspiracy nut. I'm just recounting what I keep reading in the Washington Post, about how important it is to create this new society and how the interests of the few, "late adopters" must be sacrificed for the greater good of the priveliged "early adopters".

In fact, this sort of attitude ("everyone can get one if they want to be a part of society") violates my religious beliefs, not just inalienable rights, IMHO.

[insane_cratic_gal]

17. I make them look at my ID

I even bring along registered mail, photo id and anything else so they can't discount me at the polls.

[Captain Hilts]

29. Me too. My driver's license is from out of state, so I bring mail. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

129. To prove you're not one of those Timothy McVeigh types?

That sort of distinction between "responsible citizens" and comparing "irresponsible abuse of the voting booth" to terrorism is what the goverment counts on to convince the bulk of Americans that the people who were disenfranchised "were too stupid to vote anyway". You may not think to see it that way, but if some Freeper type walked in and tried to vote without ID....... you would want them excluded.

[Captain Hilts]

156. Everyone should follow the same rules. Me, Tim McVeigh, etc. nt

[marmar]

19. A couple of reasons:

from an ACLU lawsuit in Indiana:

92. Although Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 provides that the Bureau of Motor Vehicles will provide a state identification card without cost, there are costs attendant to obtaining the documents which the Bureau of Motor Vehicles requires in order to obtain the card. This is a de facto poll tax which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

93. Regardless of the cost, Senate Enrolled Act No. 483 imposes unreasonable and irrational burdens and requirements on the fundamental right to vote and is unconstitutional as violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/003360.html

[NYC]

25. I sign my name to vote.

It matches the signature they have in the book. Never required I.D. to vote. No need for it now.

[BlueMole]

87. Same System

in NJ. Match signature in book. No ID. No photo on Driver's License either! For 30 years! Next renewal will require photo though.

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. But but.. you could be a terra-ist

Or one of them illegal immigrants (who are eligible to vote in my hometown but almost never do, unfortunately since my hometown has an all-white city council and is considered liberal. Maybe they are sneakily pretending to be citizens in order to avoid suspicion at the voting booth.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. Disparate Treatment

That is the best angle they should approach this from.

Citizens in general, are a protected class -- protected by the Constitution.

ID and that sort of thing provides disparate treatment of citizens based on -litmus tests- (possession of ID)

which is a violation of the core purpose of the 14th Amendment.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

27. Some people claim that it disenfranchises the poor.

Some Democrats claim that having a picture ID will cause some poor not to vote as it will be too much trouble for them to get an ID, so they won't be able to vote.

Personally, I have no trouble with the idea of showing ID for voting. The states that are doing it are providing free ID service, and some even have a mobile ID van to come to your place and make your ID for you.

Instead of fighting it, Democrats should embrace it and say to the Republican, "While we are cleaning up elections, let's clean up the voting and counting process, too." Believe it or not, their rank and file don't like electronic voting either. They are afraid of liberal hackers, just as we are afraid of Republican hackers.

We have a golden opportunity with this issue and should not waste it.

Elections should be secure and transparent. It would benefit both sides.

[Moochy]

39. not only "some democrats" but the DEPT OF JUSTICE

"Indeed, in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice found that African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents."

bold emphasis mine

[OldSiouxWarrior]

78. Twelve years ago.

Don't the newer laws provide for free gov't ID. If it is free, and in some states they will come to your residence to issue the ID, then what is the problem?

[Moochy]

82. That's exactly my question to you

"What is the problem"

Please cite evidence of this kind of voter fraud, worthy of new republican sponsored laws that ...

*despite what your gut tells you*

... depresses the vote of democrats more than republicans.

[tyedyeto]

88. Again.... which states?

Again because I asked this same question earlier.

[loyalsister]

147. Facts to consider

I'm not sure what state your information is based on, but here is what has happened in Missouri. People could easily be disenfranchised under this scenario. I have been working with a couple of people to help them get their IDs. There is a six month back log on birth certificates. Some people, indeed would have been SOL.

Judge strikes down Missouri's voter ID law

Sniip> He agreed with their claim that requiring drivers licenses and nondriver IDs constitutes "an impermissible additional qualification to vote" in violation of the state constitution.

Snip> While the state is offering nondriver licenses for free, applicants must present certified copies of their birth certificates, which cost at least $15. Anyone whose name has changed must provide additional documentation, such as a certified marriage license, divorce decree or court order.

Callahan said those requirements would have a "disparate effect" on women - especially poor women.

Snip> A spokesman for Attorney General Jay Nixon, a Democrat, said his office was reviewing the judge's decision. A speedy appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court is considered likely, so that the issue can be resolved before the Nov. 7 election.

If Nixon doesn't appeal, a Republican who was allowed to intervene on behalf of the sponser of the bill will.

Meanwhile, the mobile units to provide voter IDs were not funded by the state, and the state has stopped issueing them for free. So, if the ruling is reversed by the state SC, there will be a number of people who will have paid a poll tax.

State Stops Issuing Free Voter IDs
http://digmo.org/news/story.php?ID=21685

Voting should not be made difficult.

[Mister Ed]

28. The types of IDs ordained in the various Republican initiatives...

...are already in the possession of folks living comfortably (who, statistically, tend toward voting Republican), but are less often possessed by poor folk (who tend to vote Democratic). It'll be neither quick nor cheap for poor folk to obtain those types of IDs, and so fewer of them will vote. That's the aim of the Republican initiatives.

These sorts of hindrances to voting were often used to deter Blacks from voting in the Jim-Crow south. "Poll Taxes" were another common ruse: the tax would be an amount that was affordable to whites, but prohibitively expensive to poor blacks. For good reason, these tactics were made illegal.

Requiring expensive, difficult-to-obtain forms of ID would be a modern poll tax, with the same aim: to keep the poor foils from voting.

[Imagevision]

33. I.D.'s at polling places are designed to eliminate lower class vote

should be good for several million elimainate, some don't have cars, or the money for gas to afford the trip to secure an ID. Example: Indians living on reservations

[kerry-is-my-prez]

61. The poor and ill do not have access to get somewhere to get these cards.

THIS is all about disenfranchisement.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

36. There is no problem with voted fraud - this is just to disenfanchise

n/t

[kerry-is-my-prez]

40. It will cost money for them - as much as $90 THAT'S why.

[OzarkDem]

41. Its costly for some people

who don't drive and don't have a lot of money.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court has agreed on this one.

[Lexingtonian]

42. if it were all done fairly you might be right

but the point of these laws is precisely to be unfair in a way that purports to be legal and slip under the radar and conscience of people like yourself. Or dings your selfrighteous view of what can and should be required of Other People.

First of of all, why demand ID at all and not allow things to happen on an Honor System? Or a 'purple finger' variant, preventing people from voting more than once? You could simply demand that people sign to their registration information, demand minimal ID if at all, and violations would be prosecuted as perjury.

A hard question with hard ID requirements what form of ID you want to require. Some states only want to accept state-issued IDs- out-of-state IDs don't count, credit cards don't, company IDs don't, invalid driving licenses don't get accepted. If an 85 year old woman says she has no valid state-issued ID other than her birth certificate and SS card, what is the poll worker supposed to do with these laws?

Basically, any hard ID requirement de facto disenfranchises some set of voters. These various laws (all from all-Republican state governments) now being overturned are all ones that selectively disenfranchise black, poor, and elderly voters. They're designed to only affect election results maybe 1-2% statewide, but they can be used to discourage or sabotage maybe two or three times as many votes.

[Nutmegger]

43. Don't want those poor and homeless folk to vote!

Oh no!

[Fountain79]

62. How exactly does a homeless person register? n/t

[Moochy]

65. When they are not homeless

They register when times are good.

[Fountain79]

66. They can't get an I.D. when times are good? n/t

[Moochy]

67. They can

but they also should be better upstanding citizens and have jobs, and houses..
but alas and alack they are not.

does that mean they shouldnt be able to vote?

Apparently so in your view.

[Fountain79]

70. Well.....

There are a certain number of homeless people who are mentally unstable and need to be institutionalized, others who are possible drug addicts, and some that I am sure are in situations beyond their control. However it seems odd to me that a homeless person who would take the time to register himself/herself wouldn't have taken the time to get some form of I.D.

[Moochy]

75. Well you should research the subject

Please educate yourself on the issue and don't just make decisions from your gut. The evidence is out there if you care to read about it. But feel free to ignore the realpolitik of the republicans support of these vote suppression initiatives.

[Fountain79]

79. Perhaps you could show me research...

that there is a great effort among the homeless to register to vote and to vote themselves.

[Moochy]

84. I doubt it would sway you

I'm not your personal research assistant. on edit .. well that wasnt so hard.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300767.html

from the lawsuit mentioned in the wapo article
"It is statistically more likely for a Missourian to be struck by a bolt of lightning than to have his or her vote canceled by someone posing as another voter to cast a ballot."

[Fountain79]

85. Well....

you are making a claim that this is a great burden on a class of people who have no residence and are engaging in an activity in which residence is a prerequisite in deciding where a person is voting. Perhaps you could show me where I am wrong.

[Moochy]

89. Are you factoring in Time

In your calculus? Day 1 I'm not homeless. Day 2 I go to register. Day 3 I am evicted from my house and living with friends. By the time elections roll around, day 432, I've started living in my car.

I'm not hitching my entire objection to these laws based on its disenfranchisement of one class, the homeless but rather I am quite familiar with id-obsessed authoritarian minded folks (with good hearts!) who seem unable to see outside of their own limited experience.

Blacks in louisiana are likewise 4 to 5 times less likely. Yes in 1994, but things are way better nowadays right?
Is your claim that in the intervening 12 years, these states have eliminated the problems of widespread systemic poverty and rural elderly that contributed to that ratio?

[Fountain79]

91. Yes I am familiar with your statistic that you have parroted

in other posts here. The problem with such a claim is....:

From what percentage of the population are they making that statement? If I am talking about 1% of the white population...then we are talking about 4-5% of the black population?

[Moochy]

93. More parroting

Ok, so apparently 4 to 5 times as likely was the stumbling block.

Not percentages.

4 to 5 times.

If the mean percentage for the average person is 2%, that means that for blacks that number would be 8-10%

The wapo editorial I linked to which you are just too busy to read apparently:

from 8/13 wapo http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300767.html
"It was not a difficult walk. It was for a good reason."

Those were the words of Besisa Mbaguna, a Congolese man who last month walked barefoot for two and a half hours to reach his polling place and cast his vote in his country's elections. Considering Congo's troubled history and its oppressive ruling class, it's fair to marvel that people such as Mbaguna got to vote at all. One can also wonder whether those votes will actually count, despite the best efforts of United Nations officials who oversaw the elections.

It's easy to imagine, for instance, that in such a country, Mbaguna could have been stopped short of the polls and turned away for some untenable reason -- say, lack of a photo ID. In Congo, sure, but certainly not in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Or so one would like to think. But the efforts of Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana and, most recently, Missouri seemed aimed at making it as difficult to vote beneath our spacious skies as it is in war-torn Third World nations. Missouri, my home state, became the third member of this notorious trio in June, when Gov. Matt Blunt signed into law a requirement that voters show government-issued photo IDs at the polls starting in November.

Blunt and others say the law will prevent fraud. Their opponents rightly point out that the measure disproportionately affects those who have been disfranchised in the past, such as the poor and racial minorities. Besides, they argue, Missouri hasn't exactly suffered from an epidemic of imposters showing up to vote.

As one of the lawsuits filed to block the measure puts it, "It is statistically more likely for a Missourian to be struck by a bolt of lightning than to have his or her vote canceled by someone posing as another voter to cast a ballot."

Lower-income Missourians will have to fork over their feeble funds to buy the documents needed to get the ID cards, which will be free. That most of those folks tend to vote Democratic is just a coincidence, proponents of the cards contend. Right, and I have some nice fertile Missouri mules for sale.

Two of the state's Democratic congressmen, William "Lacy" Clay Jr. of St. Louis and Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City, are among those supporting the lawsuits. Cleaver said the law's "sole intention is to disenfranchise and reduce the number of citizens allowed to vote." Clay called the measure "nothing more than a 21st-century poll tax."

His reference to Jim Crow-era tactics used to stop African-Americans at the polls takes on additional resonance in the wake of last month's extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. When President Bush signed the legislation, he impressively asserted "the right of ordinary men and women to determine their own political future."

That eloquent comment acquires no small share of irony when one recalls that last year Bush's Justice Department approved Georgia's photo ID measure. That law, like the poll taxes of days gone by, would place a modern-day hurdle between ordinary folks and that vaunted future the president memorably invoked. Georgia's ID requirement has since been blocked in both state and federal courts, which ruled that it imposed unnecessary burdens on voters. (A district judge in Indiana ruled in favor of that state's law. Her decision is under appeal.)

The voting-rights extension that Bush signed had been passed over the objections of a stubborn faction of Southern Republicans, including Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who claimed, "we have repented, and we have reformed." Where voter-ID laws fit into that reform is a mystery to me.

I'm fairly sure that nobody in the United States has to journey barefoot for hours to cast a vote. Compared to the ordeals of Besisa Mbaguna and his countrymen, simply acquiring a photo ID is a walk in the park. But it is a hurdle nonetheless, especially if you're poor. Given our nation's anemic Election Day turnouts, discouragement is the last thing a prospective voter needs. If anything, our state governments should be looking for ways to bring more citizens to the polls, not fewer.

Gov. Blunt has described the new law as a new way to build public trust in elections. He no doubt is familiar with our state's most popular expression: I'm from Missouri, you have to show me.

[Fountain79]

98. Oh an op-ed...that's a good way to convince someone who

disagrees with you. I love in the beginning how the writer is trying to draw comparisons to the Congo to the United States...good emotional imagery there. The article doesn't indicate how much money the documents cost, it quotes a lawsuit but shows no studies to indicate the lack of voter fraud in the state, and mostly relies on emotional pandering to get its point across.

[Moochy]

100. Forget it you have your opinions

And you are happy and not homeless, black or elderly, I'd bet.

Bring on the Voter ID cards!!

oh and WHERE THE FUCK is the evidence of fraud? oh nowhere? yeah i thought so. end of discussion.

Law and Order Uber Alles!

[Fountain79]

104. Well...neither are you as far as the homeless part goes....

I'm mexican does that count?

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. You need shoes to vote. He should have been stopped

before he reached the polling place.

Walking around without shoes like that, much less in a public building!

Where's a Snake Plissken smiley when you need one?

This is like the "epidemic of pedestrian fatalities" in my area described by otherwise liberal Democrats as "an epidemic of jaywalking on the part of immigrants who aren't familiar with life in this country. Where they are from, people walk everywhere. In America, you drive." This is discussing the death of their neighbors, mind you! :grr:

[Leopolds Ghost]

144. "id-obsessed" for a minute I pronounced it Freudian style

because I was thinking of starting a post about the deep-seated psychological tendencies Americans have to associate driving a car (and political conservatism as a product of "outgrowing your teens") with chances to reproduce. Face it, society's got things skewed so if you don't go with the program, the pretty people of theo pposite sex won't go after you, and if that happens you're screwed (figuratively speaking). You're nobody if you don't own property and/or a car in our society and conduct yourself in a "businesslike" fashion without relying on "irrational, childish notions" and ideals. Because that sort of thing is a turn-off.

Ironically, voting is a mere side benefit of this "class-A citizenship culture" and not one that is held in particularly high regard by most "class A citizens" with a house, a car and two kids in the garage.

Voting with out ID is held in low esteem because requirements for ID are generally associated with requirements for respectability, such as property ownership; not the other way around.

The mayor of my extraordinarily liberal home-town once made this explicit, saying renters had "less of a stake" in how the city was run.

I was taught similar things when I took a class in Planning and Public Administration just for shits and giggles -- about how important it was to limit the number of families and poor people living in your municipality, thats what "ratables" refers to.

[Leopolds Ghost]

135. Homeless people do not "have no residence"

Unless you claim that only property owners should vote (which was the original intent of the Constitution before the Democrats changed it in the early 1800s.)

Anyone who has a friend can give a forwarding address.

Unless you are afraid of homeless people lying about their multiple residences and voting in two jurisdictions, like rich political carpetbaggers have been known to do?

Or are you simply saying that, as Americans are wont to say, "SOMEONE's ox is gonna get gored"

with the strong implication "it ain't gonna be me or anyone I care about"

[Leopolds Ghost]

134. There are a great many Beltway elitists (George Will) who believe

That voting is a privelige reserved PRECISELY for those who are willing to "take the time" and effort needed to meet the requirements put in the way of what they consider (literally in the case of Katrina) the backwash. They have said so in numerous Post editorials that "voting should not be easy, it is a privelige reserved for those who are responsible enough to exercise their rights as full citizens."

[Leopolds Ghost]

133. "possible drug addicts"

Don't forget prostitutes and tax collectors. :hi:

[tyedyeto]

68. Here in AZ, photo ID plus one other paper with your name and address

are required for voting. That can be a utility, credit card or other such bill in which the addresses match. A homeless person has no address. How is he/she to prove residency?

[Leopolds Ghost]

136. Answer: "Get a job and get a life"

I live in one of the most liberal towns in the country and the mayor
has made comments about not caring if RENTERS vote because they have
"less stake in how the city is run" never mind homeless.!

[cherokeeprogressive]

95. In my county, all you have to do is

tell the registrar's office what overpass you live under. Or what intersection you're sleeping nearest to. Or what park you call home.

[Balbus]

109. Because god knows they don't drive...

That's an argument for the ignorant - come up with something better than that.

[Nutmegger]

119. ?

My argument is that poor and homeless folk don't need obstacles.

[Leopolds Ghost]

148. "because god knows they don't drive"?

When did driving become a prerequisite (or an approximation) of citizenship? Might as well say that literacy test is OK because most folks are literate "and the ones that aren't, ought to be."

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. You are for something you obviously know nothing about

people like you shouldn't vote on an issue you know nothing about NOR is it ethical for you to go around voicing your opinion to large groups of people.

[Moochy]

50. Yeah it's unacceptable to think that!

oh wait.. I'm chanelling Bush!! ack! :D

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

51. After finding out that I'm still on the rolls in all the different

precincts I ahve lived in, I have to agree with you. Although I don't see why it has to be a State issued ID. A utility bill would suffice in my opinion.

[Moochy]

53. See thats the point

How many times have you voted illegally? How much of an effect would it have if everyone who was in your position , registered in multiple counties, decided to travel around all day to all 3 counties. Or say you registered five times. So, where is the evidence of this happening on a large scale?

Anyone? no? no problem. No need for a solution that disenfranchises big chunks of the democratically registered electorate.

Its the NET effect of these laws that give republican politicians woodies. That and a big portion of the middle will agree that combating fraud is "a good thing". ( Ack quoting martha stewart! )

[ScreamingMeemie]

54. Of the two registered voters in my home (Me and my husband)

collectively we are registered in 13 different precincts. That is too big a chunk for me. Proof of residency and identification is not a huge deal to me. What needs to take place is the appointment of people to ensure that the process isn't twisted.

[Moochy]

55. But what is your response to the

Justice dept. report that stated that black voters were 4 to 5 times as likely to not have a voter ID.

But even with the 13 different precincts you are not voting in more than one. Should not the efforts be placed into solutions that dont depress the democratic vote?

I understand your honest motivations but the unintended consequences (by you and other du'ers who support the idea in abstract) seem to be glibly ignored by you and others.

[ScreamingMeemie]

56. Excuse me. You call me honest and glib in the same sentence?

I'm sorry but asking someone to present a piece of mail is not a hardship IMO.

[Moochy]

58. Sorry for the offense.

Yes one can be honest, and hold on to the goal of these laws, but glibly ignore the ramifications: speciically
the proven effect that these laws have on the voter turnout among dems.

To ignore that seems glib to me. I'm not insulting you, nor am I intending to be offensive. When one summarily ignores evidence I call it glib.

And I used "honest" because I think you honestly beleive in the value of these laws. They seem like a fine solution to a non-existent problem. But again I am sorry, my intent was not to insult.

But I respect your right to hold that opinion and I disagree.
:hi:

on edit removed the ellipses (...) from subject line

And I agree that the piece of mail to prove your residency seems ok, when registering and thats what California uses when registering as an alternative to a photo-id.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

72. it is if you are poor, homeless, etc. - do you not have any empathy??

n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

83. It has nothing to do with empathy.

I am sorry, but anyone can go into one of the precincts in which they have kept me on the rolls (several attempts to rectify this have failed) and vote in my name. As a Dem, I willingly ,and will always be willing to, help the poor and the homeless (of which I once was) exercise their right to vote. I am quite content with my current state, thank you for your concern.

[Leopolds Ghost]

138. You don't trust yourself to make the right call but you trust officials?

Isn't that like all the folks in modern America who religiously put locks on all the doors in their house, including their half-bath (no joke), to protect against crime yet throw up their hands when a police officer shoots someone for no reason and say "at least I know they're out there protecting us"

[ScreamingMeemie]

153. Leopold, I am going to ask you to read my post again and then

try not to make a mountain out of the molehill of my opinion.

[Yupster]

141. I used to be an election judge

and one of the things I thought back then was that the percentage of people who vote which is reported might be wildly too low.

The reason I thought this was that I would look at my own voting list at the end of the day and we might have 4 of every 10 voters not voting. That's a 60 % voting rate.

However, of the four people who didn't vote, I would personally know that two of them moved out of the district nine months ago. Did they register and vote in their new district? Who knows. I'm sure some did.

Anyway, if you are registered in 13 different precincts, do the other 12 precincts count you as part of their non-voter percentages?

Just a thought I've always had.

[sandnsea]

74. Punish poor people because YOU screwed up??

If you and your husband are actually registered in 13 precincts, then FIX IT. You either did not list the previous precincts when you moved, OR counties don't have enough money to properly purge the rolls. If this is the problem, then fix the problem. Don't create new requirements that inflict a financial strain on those who are least able to afford it and aren't causing the problem in the first place.

[ScreamingMeemie]

86. Been there, done that, still show up on the rolls. Ummm...not my

screw up. I call every year, I notify Secretary of State... Perhaps I should run screaming into the precinct on election day to remove my name? I have also fought during the 2004 caucuses when listed polling places in Detroit were deliberately shut down. Helped garner the attention of local news stations to the problem. How about getting out there and helping those who need our help to exercise their right? Thank you. It amazes me that so many are unable to debate without yelling and flinging accusations.

[sandnsea]

116. 13 precincts?

Yeah I'd say you should run screaming someplace. You were willing to do it on election day, why not to fix another election problem. Telephone pleasantries don't fix systemic bureaucratic problems. You either call every single day until it's fixed or run screaming in someplace. I don't see how making life difficult for somebody else fixes these registration problems. Your name is still going to be in 13 precincts. If Republicans will hack machines to win, it seems to me fake ID's wouldn't be beyond them either.

[Leopolds Ghost]

140. No offense meant, but

ID is just another hurdle to be overcome in helping people who need our help exercise that right, as you put it.

If ID is ok as an additional requirement, then so are spelling tests.

There is no qualitative difference between the two that I can see.

I mean, this is not 1876. ideally, most everyone can spell, right?

[Leopolds Ghost]

137. If you're registered in all 5 places your ID will count in all of them.

:hi:

[stillcool]

52. I am just really tired of all this....

bullshit. The necessity to prove who I am when I go to vote is in my eyes just setting up another hoop to jump through. Anything, that puts barriers between the populace and the voting booth is good for one thing...suppressing the vote. That is the intended consequence.

[Moochy]

57. And thats the sinister nature of these laws

is that folks with good intent seem to cling feverishly to that goal, "prevent fraud" without acknowledging the net effect. It's as if they dont care about elderly and other voting blocs that tend to have less sympathy.

Law and order !! Verr are your papers?

[stillcool]

59. and even worse...in this Rovian world we live in...

there is no good intent...just smoke and mirrors.

[Moochy]

60. What I'm trying to say

is that the good intentions are held by those dems who are duped, or willfully ignoring the net effect, and the realpolitik of the universal republican support for these laws.

[stillcool]

76. I wish that for a moment...

I could see through a politicians eyes. Not only the world they percieve but the circuitous journey they take to arrive at a statement.

[Leopolds Ghost]

142. It is because they don't trust their neighbors to do the right thing

Fear and concern leads to social division.

It starts when people who were "radical" in their youth grow older and say "I'm sorry, but..." and go on to say that the practices of some small group of people reflect badly on a whole class of people who just HAPPEN to share an official classification making it possible to hold them in distinction.

Identity requirements, and modern ideological notions similar to fascism, not tribalism, led to the Rwandan massacre, a fact few people are aware of.

After seeing "Hotel Rwanda" I am convinced that it could happen here if enough of the country were polarized between religious and non-religious people, for example. And especially if liberals stopped caring about religious people entirely, many of whom at least used to be on the left of many issues, and drove their grandchildren into the arms of Dominionists. The Tutsis and moderate Hutus didn't see it coming till it was too late. The ID cards were the basis for everything, however.

I am not saying it will happen any time soon but we have had similar bloodletting in our past (the bombing of Tulsa, for example, or the Draft Riots, or the occupation and military bombardment of Saint Louis during the Railroad Strike.)

[tyedyeto]

63. Passports are required for INTERNATIONAL travel, NOT for....

domestic ID and/or travel or any domestic ID purpose.

I recall a few years ago when a politician's daughter got off a bus in Maine (left from Boston, IIRC) and some yayhoo security person asked to see her passport. After arguing that she didn't need a passport to travel within the US, she was told to show it or go 'downtown'.

That is what is happening to this country, you will be asked for ID above your drivers license or state ID card... and if you have nothing, you will be detained.

What does this have to do with voter ID? It's the beginnings of the national ID scam. I believe this ID scam is part and parcel of everyone having to purchase a NATIONAL ID CARD and when the authorities say "Show me your ID", if you don't have it, you will be taken off to a Halliburton run concentration-style camp.

[Fountain79]

64. I never said that I.D. is required for domestic travel...n/t

[tyedyeto]

71. Sorry... that wasn't in your OP

I should have replied to one of the other posters on this thread who talked about passports.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Leopolds Ghost]

143. Amtrak does...

Soon buses will too. Drivers licenses -- instead of simply a vehicle test they have been turned into police tools AND taxation tools (speed traps, random checkpoints, etc.) And police want passengers, not just drivers, to carry ID.

In some states it is illegal to be found on the sidewalk on foot without an ID and $5.00 in your pocket. In some cities it's illegal to walk in the street when there is inadequate sidewalk, a violation of common law.

And most people who drive never consider the meaning of it because they are so used to their drivers license doubling as proof of citizenship that they don't realize many people in authority basically ignore the rights of non-drivers, sometimes fatally (as in the case of pedestrian fatalities or Katrina for that matter) -- the ID requirement is merely further icing on the cake.

Someone up-thread mentioned a conference he/she went to where they said retinal scans are next. Minority Report, anyone?

Worst part about it is I was on a movie blog where someone said that Minority Report and Blade Runner weren't "dystopias".

"They aren't the happiest futures, true, but they show a future in which most people are reasonably happy, and things aren't too busted up."

[treestar]

69. None of those things are in quite the same league as voting

This kind of thing makes it tougher on the poor - say non-drivers, who can't spend the money they charge for an ID or even get to the DMV.

Besides how necessary is it? It's where you live.

This country has gotten along fine without all this ID-obsessed crap.

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. INALIENABLE RIGHTS CANNOT BE RESTRICTED BY "PAPERS, PLEASE".

Walking down the street without ID is another right that affluent, tech-savvy "New Democrats" would gladly team up with Republicans to take away from us. I predict they will, after we defeat the Republicans. What we have right now is two parties of the overclass... I see no way to change that.

The purpose of ID, especially bioinformatic, location-chip ID, is to (a) track those that have them and (b) exclude those that don't.

Neither function has any purpose in a "democracy".

Whenever someone asks me for ID, unless it is a voluntary transaction, I tell them I don't have it and ascertain how I will be treated.

In the District Of Columbia you cannot enter the chambers for a PUBLIC HEARING without ID. Another example of violation of a right classified as inalienable under the US Constitution (petition and adress the government for grievances).

Did I mention "seniors and homeless people" are not the only people who DON'T DRIVE -- and many states give out ID at DRIVERS LICENSE PROGRAMS?

Oh, I forgot, in America only the criminally insane know better than to try and get around without a car. That's why the rest of us get harrassed, fenced-in and put under suspicion simply for exercising our right of way as pedestrians. That's why public space doesn't exist in the suburbs, rendering freedom of assembly moot (example, the ability to exclude and detain gatherings of day-laborers because 100% of public space is paved for automobile use -- by the licensed and registered citizens. Sort of like the Roman definition of citizenship.)

[Fountain79]

92. Do you have an ID? n/t

[Moochy]

97. Your original post stated "I am curious "

I am having doubts as to the veracity of that statement.

[Fountain79]

99. I also said...

"convince me otherwise"

[Moochy]

105. Nothing can shake you from your gut feeling about it

and you have proven by your willful ignorance that its futile for me or others to try.

[Fountain79]

107. You cited one statistic from Lousiana...

from the 90's and an op-ed piece...and lots of emotional rhetoric. Not a lot of convincing there or am I missing something?

[Moochy]

108. what great advances have we made since 94

as a nation what conditions have changed to make that study from 94 invalid?

I'm sure I could find other more recent studies, but would that help?

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/236/video.html

Here is a video from PBS.org is that unbiased enough for you? or is PBS part of the vast left-wing media? :D

[Leopolds Ghost]

110. It's not a statistical issue.

This is why I'm leery of the branch of liberalism that says, if we merely restore "rationalism" "science" and "meritocracy" (i.e. the technocratic approach, a legitimate and common opinion among Dem policymakers) that the problems to be addressed by a utilitarian approach (the most benefit to the most citizens) will go away.

I agree with Ursula LeGuin's famous rebuttal of that approach.

If even one person has their rights denied by this ritualistic and frankly religious insistence on flashing ID (similar to the Romans killing Christians for refusing to throw incense at official gods they themselves no longer really believed in), then it doesn't matter to me if the result is programmed intentionally to ensure the well-being of the rest of humanity.

I'm sure Ursula LeGuin had a few choice words about the morality of George Bush torturing 1 innocent person in order to stop a million from being killed, because she wrote a famous short story about it.

In this case, we are not torturing non-drivers and people who don't have credit and a mortgage, merely excluding them, just like people hwo don't have credit (the actual poor) are now excluded from all new public housing, and people without ID can no longer walk on the streets of sidewalk-less cities without being detained in some locations for "vagrancy".

[Leopolds Ghost]

112. This is what my neighbors always ask me when I discuss this with them

As if it obviously makes a difference. If it makes a difference to them, they are merely proving my point, however.

If they're just curious, does it matter to them? I don't drive, I take mass transit because I believe in helping the environment, and as an architecture student, I'm familiar with the damage our out-of-control car culture has done to society. (Bring up any development issue that causes social displacement and I can point out where the economic and physical requirements of auto access, laid down by law, have made sustainable development impossible in the US). The reason this ties into rights like voting is the whole carrot-and-stick policy, e.g. "Demand Management". Even "new urbanists" who want people to drive less are basically happy with sidewalks that only go far enough for local residents to use, i.e. stop at the edge of the income-stratified subdivision to prevent minorities from entering. Going around on foot, I have seen countless wealthy subdivisions where the sidewalk goes only as far as the bus stop on the road to the nearest barrio, and the implication is obvious who those sidewalks are for and who they are not for. ID is part of that Demand Management strategy. If ID is required for voting, even if one's name is on the rolls, it sets a precedent.

(Being able to call up ones name and town of residence is a form of ID known as recognizance in the courtroom, used in civilized society. but not in statist societies like Europe and the Middle East where the state, not the people, is sovereign, and inalienable rights are not recognized as such in most countries! In such places, despite their liberalism, any right can be revoked by legislation if enough people agree to do so. That USED to be the thing that separated us from the British Commonwealth. Saying that as long as we are in charge and not those evil republicans, we will be just as hunky dory as those Europeans, who are quite liberal most of the time, does not suffice.)

I have religious and philosophical beliefs that compel me not to accept that sort of domination by the state. The only organized groups I'm aware of that share those beliefs are the Amish and the Mennonites, as well as various "radical" groups, most of whom I don't agree with on other issues, such as the Libertarians. Obviously their freedom of conscience is not being respected, however. I'm awaiting the day when we have to declare ourselves conscientious objectors in order to justify not having a drivers license like ordinary americans.

[Leopolds Ghost]

150. If I said I had a library card, would that help? n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. I'm saddened & shocked that so few have echoed this point on this thread

I would say they don't deserve the rights the Founders gave them, but THAT sentiment is exactly thw impulse that drives the ID movement at all levels of society.

The fact that people have no problem being tracked for voluntary transactions (or going through the ritualistic motions of flashing ID to prove they are a Full Citizen Of The Empire and not a member of some excluded class) is bad enough when it is voluntary.

It is unacceptable to place ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, even hypothetical ones, on INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

If they are only hypothetical, the ID serves no purpose other than to track people. This makes modern Americans (the ones who believe "I have nothing to hide") feel safe and protected by virtue of the fact that they are not one of those "undesirables".

The motivation is the same as requiring soon-to-be bioinformatic, GPS chipped IDs to own a bicycle, to get a job, to exercise basic rights not only of citizenship, but of common law, i.e. rights that predate the constituion and everyone is entitled to, meaning access restrictions are not allowed.

There is a difference between access restrictions and verification of residency, by the way. The latter is incapable of tracking or excluding people, e.g. the homeless, those who don't have cars, those who don't have CREDIT and other people who choose to exercise their freedom as a consumer or citizen without someone saying "very well, DON'T drive. DON'T get an ID. Don't expect to survive long without one."

Like many of the people on this forum (I should know because the community I grew up in is to the left of DU, and its affluent, tech-savvy residents feel the same way. A drivers license and a car, for them, and usually a mortgage, are a requirement for taking someones' opinions and RIGHTS seriously. "In this modern day and age, anyone who doesn't have psychological or physical disabilities should be able to get a car and a mortgage. The purpose of liberalism is to make that possible for all Americans, so it makes sense to apply a carrot and stick philosophy to raise people out of the underclass." That is what they believe. I have no doubt that their grandchildren will be chipped.)

[Moochy]

113. Why not just Chips instead of IDs

"I have no doubt that their grandchildren will be chipped."

If all goes well the happy grandchildren of authoritarian corporate citizens will get their mickey chips at birth at the Little Mermaid Birthing Center (tm)

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2153646/disney-offers-kid-tracking-via

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. When Tyrrany comes to the US, it will be Chocolate-Flavored.

As Huey Long (not a perfect person by any means) said: "When fascism comes to America it will not be called fascism. It will be called 100% Americanism!"

I dont believe people in the US are fascists. I think they are too willing to give up their own rights, and in so doing, mine (which is a problem for me, and for those people down in New Orleans.)

[Jed Dilligan]

96. What surprises me is that there are states

that don't require ID for everyone at all times. In CA you can go to jail for having no ID. It's one of my least favorite laws, but not being able to vote would be the least worry of someone here not carrying ID!

[Clarkie1]

103. I agree with I.D. for voting, but ID must free to all citizens. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

123. If so, then what's the point? To exclude those who don't get it?

To prevent "al Quaeda sympathizers" from electing Bin Laden president by "exploiting our open society" at the voting booth? :evilgrin:

Inevitably, some will be excluded for "rational, technological" reasons that are every bit as paranoid and irrational as the old days, when religious tests were used to determine if one was a loyal citizen of the Roman (or Spanish, etc.) Empire. All the loyal people "converted", thereby isolating the deviants!

Carrot and Stick "Demand Management" doesn't work if they don't have anyone to make an example out of. Requiring people to register not once but twice (for something an RFID chip that is not a requirement of citizenship) ensures that someone will be left out.

It's like the people who said "I have no problem asking elementary school kids for ID in order to get lunch, what sort of parent would send their kids to school without ID?"

[Sapphire Blue]

111. As requested: ***** BLOCK THE VOTE ***** PBS NOW *****

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2175946

[upi402]

132. What's democracy anyway???

2 wolves and 4 chickens voting on what's for dinner?

[rman]

145. the issue is cost/accessibility, and oversight to prevent abuse

Would you pay $97 to vote?
http://www.commonblog.com/story/2006/9/18/15137/4369

<snips>

On Wednesday, the U.S. House will vote on HR 4844, the Ehlers/Hyde bill, which requires all voters to show a photo ID that must also include proof of citizenship.

Ok, pull out your driver's license. Does it say, "This ID certifies that the holder is a U.S. citizen"? Unlikely. Based on preliminary research, we think that there are only three states--Alabama, Arizona, and Wyoming--that offer citizenship-verified drivers' licenses.

If you're not from one of those states, you'll need a passport in order to vote. That'll cost you $97 and six weeks of waiting, unless you want to pay more to expedite the process.

Of course, if the 75 percent of eligible voters who don't currently have a passport decide that they do indeed want to vote, the waiting time could increase significantly. Six weeks could become six months.

Does this make sense? Of course not. That's why we're urging all Common Cause members and friends to call their congressional representatives and ask them to vote against HR 4844. To find your House representative, go to http://wwwcommoncause.org/FindElectedOfficials .

1. It's a blatantly partisan attempt to limit the ability of some groups of voters to cast a ballot. No rigging of the rules allowed!
2. It places a burden on certain groups of voters--elderly, minority, poor, rural, and urban--and that's unfair.

3. Forcing voters to buy a passport at $97 is a de facto poll tax.

Please call today and ask your representative to vote against HR 4844.

[Leopolds Ghost]

149. This is it, folks... the internal passport

That people in the Middle East and Africa are/were forced to carry everywhere to prove they aren't criminals. (Hotel Rwanda anyone?)

Europe followed the lead of fascism and Communism on this...
But most Europeans are comfortable and well educated and are
unlikely to be opressed, so it's not a problem right? :sarcasm:

In most countries with internal papers for every citizen, the state is sovereign, citizenry is a privilege not a right, and there is no such thing as our Bill of Rights -- indeed many of our "secular, modern" friends overseas feel they can do just fine without a bill of rights.

"There are limits to free speech and yes, the authorities should be able to stop people and search them at random, if it's in the best interests of the nation, so I see no problem with national ID because if you aren't carrying it, chances are you're a criminal." That sort of rhetoric is common on the Internet when folks get into political discussions with folks across the pond. Heck, in Asia "liberalism" means Reagan/Thatcher Republicanism, so no help there.

[OregonDem]

151. We shouldn't prevent legal people from voting but we also want less fraud

I think the ID law would prevent some people from voting so I'm against it. Maybe we should have people prove that they live in the area they vote when they register to vote, then have the ballots mailed to them. We have mail in ballots here in Oregon and I think its great because its easy and I think its the best system to get more people to participate. While it possible someone else could take your ballot and forge your signature on it, I think mail in ballots reduces the possibility that voter fraud can occur since they are mailed directly to the person's residence.

[rman]

152. You seem to imply the main problem is "voter fraud" rather than

election fraud.

IDs won't do anything to fix the fixing of the elections, rather it is likely to facilitate it by excluding the poor (moslty Dem voters) and possibly by mixing up voter IDs which excludes even more people from voting - just 'mix up' the IDs of two Dem voters and neither can vote until it's sorted out (which will be after the election).

[B Calm]

155. Lets make a deal!! Photo ID for paper ballots!

[Moderator]

159. Locking.

This discussion has flamed out.