Partisan fissures over voter ID

[MorningGlory]

The only reason anyone could have for opposing voters show IDs before voting is because they desire to commit fraud. Based on that obvious fact, notice who is in favor of voter ID and who is against it. Without illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and dead people voting, a large part of the Democratic base, it is harder for their candidates to get elected.

I did a google search on who is actually opposing this requirement for voter I.D.; and yes, it does appear to be mostly Democrats. I agree that the only ones inconvenienced by this requirement are those who don't want the light of day shown upon them when they vote.

[O'Dannyboy]

I can't help but think that despite their opposition to the I.D.s, if the Democrats lost the Presidential race they will be the first ones complaining about voter fraud. Don't get me wrong. Our entire political system needs revamp. Our leaders are content to let problems fester long enough to cobble together 3000 page bills that they can sneak their pork projects but somehow resist passing smaller bills that address specific problems, such as securing our southern border. Despite the disappointing performance of the President this is one thing he has done that I admire. He has not hesitated to call Congress and the Senate to task when it comes to lumping bills together for the purpose of disguising pet projects. Thats one of the greatest problems in our government today is that these pork barrel projects have become, in essence, political currency.

[rtwo]

Voting -is- a right -- for citizens. I'd like to see a demonstrable hardship for people before ruling out the ID system. Personally I think Hillary hates the idea because it rules out the dead and illegals.

Having been a poll watcher before, I have never witnessed the dead or illegals vote. 50 years ago, the system was so corrupt that kind of thing was a problem. Today the problem is more an issue of disenfranchisement than voter fraud. You have a constitutional right to reasonably exercise the rights of citizenship without having to "show your papers". Now, of course, there are plenty of exceptions and personally I don't see anything wrong with showing ID to vote. However, I would not be surprised if it were ruled as unconstitutional.

Without checking IDs, how would you know?

[buckthesystem]

I am really amazed at some of you, you just don't get it. You seem to be more concerned with who would vote for the republicans or the democrats than you are concerned with the principle behind your own government demanding "papers please".

Personally I find it extremely insulting if I am ever "asked" to "identify" myself. I find it insulting that I am being accused of being a liar (i.e. it is assumed by the person demanding to see "ID" that I might be claiming to be someone I am not or something I am not) and I find it insulting that I am being accused of being a criminal (i.e. it is assumed by the person demanding to see "ID" that I might be trying to commit fraud).

This is a reversal of the centuries old onus of proof! Surely it is up to the person in the polling station who thinks that I may be impersonating somebody else (i.e. a legal voter) to prove that I am a fraudulent criminal with no right to cast a vote in the USA.

Voting is a basic right of citizens, as is driving a car, having privacy in your own house or flat and defending yourself and your family against intruders and your own government. The government is not in a position to grant you privileges. The people grant the government the privilege of being paid to do the will of the people and they can - theoretically at least - take that away any time they want.

Apparently, if this is all accepted, the average voter will have to show: Proof of Lawful Presence. Proof of Identity and Proof of Residency. For "lawful presence" a US born citizen apparently has to show a birth certificate, or an immigrant a certificate of naturalisation and a passport. For proof of identify (and this is the really horrible part) a current passport is required or a driving licence or a Social Security card or Medicare card with your current name can be presented. If your name on the Social Security card or Medicare card does not match your current name, additional documents must be presented to supply proof of your name change. Proof of residence means that you have a "variety of options" to prove your current address. Examples include a recent utility bill (including phone, electric, gas, water, sewer, and cable), property tax receipt, or most recent bank statement, voter ID card, or any official letter issued within the last 30 days by another state or local governmental agency on its letterhead. Proof of residency will be required each time you apply to renew a driver license, nondriver license, or instruction permit. A complete list of documents that will be accepted as proof of residency is available. If you are under the age of 21 and cannot provide proof of residency, a parent or legal guardian may provide such a document on your behalf. Now this last one makes utterly no room for anyone who is homeless or "of no fixed abode". Why do you think that is?

This is all to get you a "voter id" card, but wait for it ....................

It seem that this is just another of those things to make the "real id card" essential! Sure, it will soon be "replaced" by "real id" - no real id - no vote!

"Voter fraud" has never been any great problem for Republican or Democrat, but it seems that this is yet another case of "why let the facts stand in the way of such a good solution desperately looking for a problem to make people think that it is necessary" - you guessed it: "Real ID" how did you ever do without it in the past?

[O'Dannyboy]

I am really amazed at some of you, you just don't get it. You seem to be more concerned with who would vote for the republicans or the democrats than you are concerned with the principle behind your own government demanding "papers please".

Personally I find it extremely insulting if I am ever "asked" to "identify" myself. I find it insulting that I am being accused of being a liar (i.e. it is assumed by the person demanding to see "ID" that I might be claiming to be someone I am not or something I am not) and I find it insulting that I am being accused of being a criminal (i.e. it is assumed by the person demanding to see "ID" that I might be trying to commit fraud).

This is a reversal of the centuries old onus of proof! Surely it is up to the person in the polling station who thinks that I may be impersonating somebody else (i.e. a legal voter) to prove that I am a fraudulent criminal with no right to cast a vote in the USA.

Voting is a basic right of citizens, as is driving a car, having privacy in your own house or flat and defending yourself and your family against intruders and your own government. The government is not in a position to grant you privileges. The people grant the government the privilege of being paid to do the will of the people and they can - theoretically at least - take that away any time they want.

Apparently, if this is all accepted, the average voter will have to show: Proof of Lawful Presence. Proof of Identity and Proof of Residency. For "lawful presence" a US born citizen apparently has to show a birth certificate, or an immigrant a certificate of naturalisation and a passport. For proof of identify (and this is the really horrible part) a current passport is required or a driving licence or a Social Security card or Medicare card with your current name can be presented. If your name on the Social Security card or Medicare card does not match your current name, additional documents must be presented to supply proof of your name change. Proof of residence means that you have a "variety of options" to prove your current address. Examples include a recent utility bill (including phone, electric, gas, water, sewer, and cable), property tax receipt, or most recent bank statement, voter ID card, or any official letter issued within the last 30 days by another state or local governmental agency on its letterhead. Proof of residency will be required each time you apply to renew a driver license, nondriver license, or instruction permit. A complete list of documents that will be accepted as proof of residency is available. If you are under the age of 21 and cannot provide proof of residency, a parent or legal guardian may provide such a document on your behalf. Now this last one makes utterly no room for anyone who is homeless or "of no fixed abode". Why do you think that is?

This is all to get you a "voter id" card, but wait for it ....................

It seem that this is just another of those things to make the "real id card" essential! Sure, it will soon be "replaced" by "real id" - no real id - no vote!

"Voter fraud" has never been any great problem for Republican or Democrat, but it seems that this is yet another case of "why let the facts stand in the way of such a good solution desperately looking for a problem to make people think that it is necessary" - you guessed it: "Real ID" how did you ever do without it in the past?

While you may not agree, there are people out there who are not as honest as you claim to be. In a perfect world we could all be offended by people doubting what we say, but we all know this is not a perfect world. So are we to assume that every time someone asks you for your identification you become boligerant? Would you be happier if our government and businesses just took everyone at their word? In the face of rampant identity theft you would still rather that anyone who claims to be a U.S. citizen be allowed to vote? Perhaps I would like to vote more than once. Without proper identification I could claim to be Elvis Presley and if they dare to ask me for identification I should have the right to sue based on descrimination. Is that how it should work? I don't think so.

In my opinion your argument is not based on logic but rather made for the sake of the argument itself. Requiring identification to vote is the only way to ensure that the person voting is who they say they are. A photo I.D. that is difficult to forge is the only way to ensure that the person is a U.S. citizen and second that they are who they claim to be to prevent them from voting more than once. Obviously the current voting process could be more secure and streamlined but it is propbably the best in the world.

Look at it this way. At least you live in a country that lets you vote. Perhaps whatever the requirements or red tape it's still worth the effort. Oh wait. Is voting supposed to effortless?

[rtwo]

To suggest that we "don't get it" because we don't agree with your conclusion is, I'd suggest, rather presumptuous. I simply don't have any sort of problem with requiring people to pull out their IDs at the polling station. I'd say choosing the next leader is pretty important -- and the decision ought to be ensured to have been made rightly and properly by citizens who actually have the right to do so.

[tah]

I remember once when I went to get my drivers license renewed a few decades ago..

I took no identification with me except my drivers license..I was appalled they wanted more..didn't they trust me?

heck no..the world is full of liars and cheats..

I say make them show id's....the world has not changed as far as I can see...

[buckthesystem]

Well it seems that most of you have bought into the "apply the 'solution' that we've always wanted to the non-existant problem" mentality. You seem to be totally convinced that it is a good idea to "show your papers" every time you have them demanded.

Doesn't the obviousness of the reversal of the onus of proof bother anyone at all?

What about the expense and trouble that someone has to go through to get "voter id"? The expense and trouble of providing all the documentation that is demanded "to prove who they are, where they live, whether or not they are in the country legally" before they can get "an acceptable form of id"? Someone pointed out that some states provide free state id to needy, but they do not compensate them for the expense and time it takes to collect all the documents needed before they can get their state id! Surely this will result in disenfranchisement because some will conclude that "it is just not worth it" and not bother voting. Maybe that's the plan all along?

Doesn't the fact that this does in no way cater for the homeless or those of "no fixed abode", concern anyone? Has nobody here been in that position and can relate to it?

However, the big question: I think it is obvious that this is leading up to justifying "real id". Soon, the only acceptable form of ID will be a "real id card". A real ID card imposed on the people by stealth, lies, sneakiness and blackmail. Does this not bother anyone?

How about the fact that this is really just a solution desperately looking for a problem? Meaning that "voter fraud" has never really been a great problem, but again, why let the facts stand in the way of a draconian "solution"?

[O'Dannyboy]

Well it seems that most of you have bought into the "apply the 'solution' that we've always wanted to the non-existent problem" mentality. Non-existent? Prove it. You seem to be totally convinced that it is a good idea to "show your papers" every time you have them demanded. When you vote is NOT every time it's demanded. Exaggeration and insinuation will not help your case.

Doesn't the obviousness of the reversal of the onus of proof bother anyone at all?How is it a reversal? Do you actually expect the government to be responsible for proving you are who you say you are? The paperwork and effort would be double what it would take an individual on their own schedule to accomplish.

What about the expense and trouble that someone has to go through to get "voter id"? I can sympathise with the expense but the trouble of making time is something we all have to do whether its voting or waiting in line at Wal-mart. The expense and trouble of providing all the documentation that is demanded "to prove who they are, where they live, whether or not they are in the country legally" before they can get "an acceptable form of id"? Thats right. It's called responsibility. While optional, there are a lot of people that would do well to grow up and assume their share of it. Someone pointed out that some states provide free state id to needy, but they do not compensate them for the expense and time it takes to collect all the documents needed before they can get their state id! Surely this will result in disenfranchisement because some will conclude that "it is just not worth it" and not bother voting. Your kidding right? Just look how voter turnout is NOW when there's no "real I.D.". If their is any disenfranchisement it's because people don't like any of the candidates and refuse to vote or they are simply too lazy to wait in line at the polls. Perhaps there are those that think the polls are rigged and a "real I.D." just might give them a reason to trust the process for a change. Maybe that's the plan all along?

Doesn't the fact that this does in no way cater for the homeless or those of "no fixed abode", concern anyone? Has nobody here been in that position and can relate to it? While their situation is regrettable it doesn't justify taking everyone at their word. People lie and there is nothing you can say that will change it.

However, the big question: I think it is obvious that this is leading up to justifying "real id". Soon, the only acceptable form of ID will be a "real id card". I'm not promoting any all purpose one size fits all I.D. I simply want people who VOTE, let me say that again, VOTE, to have proper identification, TO VOTE. Clear enough? A real ID card imposed on the people by stealth, lies, sneakiness and blackmail. Does this not bother anyone? It's stealth, lies, sneakiness and blackmail that have created the need for proper identification, not the other way around.

How about the fact that this is really just a solution desperately looking for a problem? Meaning that "voter fraud" has never really been a great problem, but again, why let the facts stand in the way of a draconian "solution"? The existence of voter fraud is not unlike global warming. There is evidence to support both sides yet there is no definitive proof either way so why not err on the side of caution? Better safe than sorry right?

NOONE here has said we want a "real I.D." or that we support any proposals that would call for it. Non of us has said we want you or anyone else to have to show identification to buy groceries, gasoline or to cross the county line. You seem to find it acceptable that I.D. be required to drive or to by alcohol or to rent [R] rated movies but Heaven forbid that we require proper identification to vote. Is this true?

I personally ONLY want to be able to trust that no non-citizen can vote simply because a small minority didn't want to be inconvenienced. If there is any disenfranchisement it's already taking place with the "lesser of two evils" mindset. I am 38 and I have voted in a total of two presidential elections. I'm not proud of it but I didn't like ANY of the candidates and so I didn't vote. Today voting could not be simpler and all I have to do is invest an hour or so waiting in line at the polls. I would have rather voted, as Richard Prior put it, for "non of thee above. Most people, as far as I'm concerned, refuse to vote because they don't like ANY of the candidates and not because they are lazy. It's that simple.

You think our system of voting would be disenfranchising if we required proper identification FOR ALL but consider the risk the people of Iraq took to vote and then tell me how bad we have it. If Americans actually believed they could make a difference and they actually found a candidate they liked, they would be like the people of Iraq, willing to risk their very lives, and even the "disenfranchised" might be able to pull themselves away from the T.V. long enough vote.

Of course your next argument will be that since so many people are already disenfranchised a "true I.D." would only make things worse. This is probably true. You want a cause worth fighting for? Instead of worrying about whether homeless people get to vote how about making it where we can all go to the polls and make sure that we aren't forced to vote for people we don't like and to choose between the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile the best we can do is make sure each of our votes counts and not have the our elections watered down with fraudulent votes.

[rtwo]

Well it seems that most of you have bought into the "apply the 'solution' that we've always wanted to the non-existant problem" mentality. You seem to be totally convinced that it is a good idea to "show your papers" every time you have them demanded.

Not sure that works out, Buck. You can't assume that, because I think it's okay to ID for voting purposes, I also believe it's okay to show ID for anything and everything we're told to. You're being an alarmist.