Voter ID laws

[JeepDawg]

These activities are not a guaranteed constitutional right. Voting is a right.

Exactly. Voting is far more important, and is a right of citizens. Can't prove you are a citizen? Sorry, you can't vote.

How is that racist?

 

[InTheLight]

From: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Dead_people_voting

<snip>Dallas County

Melvin Porter, although he died in January 2007, cast a vote in the March 4, 2008 Democratic primary in Dallas County. A subsequent investigation by Texas Watchdog turned up the names of 6,000 dead voters on the Dallas County list of registered voters.[9]

One fraudulent ballot was cast. Was it a clerical error or deliberate misrepresentation?

New York

A study by the Poughkeepsie Journal in October 2006 of the state's then-new statewide database found that the list contained as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and that as many as 2,600 of them had cast votes from the grave.

From the article:
The Journal's analysis is the first to examine the potential for errors and fraud in New York's three-month-old database. It matched names, dates of birth and ZIP codes in the state's database of 11.7 million voter registration records against the same information in the Social Security Administration's "Death Master File," a database of 77 million records of deaths dating to 1937.

The state database was current as of Oct. 4, the master death index through the second quarter of 2006.

The same process has been used to identify deceased registrants in other states, but is not yet being used in New York.

The numbers do not indicate how much fraud is the result of dead voters in New York, only the potential for it. Typically, records of votes by the dead are the result of bookkeeping errors and do not result in the casting of extra ballots. The Journal did not find any fraud in the local matches it investigated.

http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/...9/NEWS01/610290381/1006/NEWS01&nclick_check=1

Tennessee

* In 2006, the Tennessee State Senate voted to nullify the election of Ophelia Ford after an investigation revealed that three poll workers had faked votes in her behalf, including at least two votes cast in the name of dead people.

Poll workers faking votes would not be stopped by photo ID requirements.

That's all the homework I'm doing for you - I think I have submitted plenty of proof.

You haven't shown deliberate fraud, except for the Tennessee incident which photo ID wouldn't have stopped. You've shown erroneous voter registrations but not votes. You've shown clerical errors. You've shown dead people 'voting' that was determined not to be fraud.

And we haven't even touched on the subject of Motor Voters.....

Go for it. Show me where people registered via Motor Voter have fraudulently voted. Note: Not been registered to vote, but actually voted.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

ITL: I'm not disagreeing that photo ID would've prevented some of the things above.

With that said, what is your ultimate problem with having to show a valid photo ID to vote?

I don't see what's so hard about this.

 

[InTheLight]

ITL: I'm not disagreeing that photo ID would've prevented some of the things above.

With that said, what is your ultimate problem with having to show a valid photo ID to vote?

I don't see what's so hard about this.

I'm a conservative, I take it you are too. Don't we stand for less government intrusion into our lives, less regulations? Yet conservatives are proposing a new burdensome law meant to regulate a constitutional right. Whole new government agencies, with corresponding budgets will be created.

There are people that don't have a photo ID. Many elderly people don't have a drivers license. Now they've got to arrange transportation to get to a government office somewhere to get their picture taken and prove that they've lived in the same house they've been in for probably 40 or 50 years. Just so they can exercise their constitutional right to vote. What about people that move a month or two before the election and don't have a new driver's license. Right now they can vote by bringing a utility bill or a neighbor to vouch residency for them. With photo ID they could be prevented from voting.

I just think it's a solution looking for a problem to solve.

 

[mandym]

Whole new government agencies, with corresponding budgets will be created.

What? Oh good grief

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

I'd say I'm conservative, yes. But I don't view this as government intrusion into our lives. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, right? It may be your right, but it's a right you don't have to choose. They are merely stating if you choose to enact upon your right, please have a valid photo ID to prove you are who you say you are.

Just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean one shouldn't have to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them.

As for your other scenarios, they bring their photo ID with their new gas bill. Pretty simply.

It sounds to me like you don't care if illegals vote. At least that's the direction you're going by saying you don't want a simple process to take place.

If 20 million people vote, but one of those 20 million people who voted was not an american, and they could've been stopped from voting by having to produce an ID, we need this. I think it's that simple.

I don't think we'll ever be able to stop certain types of fraud (such as you listed above), but this is one step towards it.

I'm a conservative, I take it you are too. Don't we stand for less government intrusion into our lives, less regulations? Yet conservatives are proposing a new burdensome law meant to regulate a constitutional right. Whole new government agencies, with corresponding budgets will be created.

There are people that don't have a photo ID. Many elderly people don't have a drivers license. Now they've got to arrange transportation to get to a government office somewhere to get their picture taken and prove that they've lived in the same house they've been in for probably 40 or 50 years. Just so they can exercise their constitutional right to vote. What about people that move a month or two before the election and don't have a new driver's license. Right now they can vote by bringing a utility bill or a neighbor to vouch residency for them. With photo ID they could be prevented from voting.

I just think it's a solution looking for a problem to solve.

 

[Don]

What? Oh good grief

On the point of whole new government agencies with corresponding budgets - he's right. It will be used as an excuse to create a new agency whose sole task is to administer voter ID cards. Someone's going to have to design the card; you can expect a nice six or seven, or even eight figure amount to the contractor who does that. Then there's the distribution part; how will you get your voter ID?

Even if it's pushed down to the local agencies to make it happen, the local areas are going to talk about additional work and resources. You gotta have the card stock; you gotta have the picture-taking capability (unless you allow people to send in their own photo, but that opens up a whole new discussion about fraud); if you don't allow people to send in a photo, you gotta have the facility for people to go to so they can get their photo taken; or you gotta have the computer/network system integration capability to use driver's license photos that are already in the DMV system; you gotta have the printing capability to print out the cards; you gotta have the postal funds to send out the cards; you gotta have the manpower to make it all happen....

Yep, another federal agency is most likely; but they'll probably push the brunt of the work down to the local levels, and those levels will be looking for additional resources....

I still say, make people show their social security card, or a letter from the social security administration identifying that they don't have a social security card. No additional agencies, no additional funds, no additional manpower.

 

[mandym]

On the point of whole new government agencies with corresponding budgets - he's right. It will be used as an excuse to create a new agency whose sole task is to administer voter ID cards.

This agency already exists, it is called the motor Vehicle Department.

 

[carpro]

On the point of whole new government agencies with corresponding budgets - he's right. It will be used as an excuse to create a new agency whose sole task is to administer voter ID cards. Someone's going to have to design the card; you can expect a nice six or seven, or even eight figure amount to the contractor who does that. Then there's the distribution part; how will you get your voter ID?

Even if it's pushed down to the local agencies to make it happen, the local areas are going to talk about additional work and resources. You gotta have the card stock; you gotta have the picture-taking capability (unless you allow people to send in their own photo, but that opens up a whole new discussion about fraud); if you don't allow people to send in a photo, you gotta have the facility for people to go to so they can get their photo taken; or you gotta have the computer/network system integration capability to use driver's license photos that are already in the DMV system; you gotta have the printing capability to print out the cards; you gotta have the postal funds to send out the cards; you gotta have the manpower to make it all happen....

Yep, another federal agency is most likely; but they'll probably push the brunt of the work down to the local levels, and those levels will be looking for additional resources....

I still say, make people show their social security card, or a letter from the social security administration identifying that they don't have a social security card. No additional agencies, no additional funds, no additional manpower.

Voter ID is a state issue.

The feds have nothing to do with it. No new federal agency would be needed.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

This agency already exists, it is called the motor Vehicle Department.

This. Just go to your local BMV and get an ID. You can also do it at some post offices, etc.

 

[InTheLight]

Just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean one shouldn't have to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them.

OK, so I'm going to assume you're in favor of waiting periods for buying guns. Also, photo ID's being necessary to purchase guns at gun shows.

As for your other scenarios, they bring their photo ID with their new gas bill. Pretty simply.

If you've recently moved just prior to election day, unless you live in the same voting district your current driver's license won't work.

It sounds to me like you don't care if illegals vote. At least that's the direction you're going by saying you don't want a simple process to take place.

Of course I don't want illegals to vote! Are they voting now? Is it a big problem?

If 20 million people vote, but one of those 20 million people who voted was not an american, and they could've been stopped from voting by having to produce an ID, we need this. I think it's that simple.

Photo ID will cause many more people to not be able to vote because they don't have a photo ID.

 

[mandym]

Photo ID will cause many more people to not be able to vote because they don't have a photo ID.

Then they should get one. It's their choice and there is no impediment to doing it.

 

[carpro]

Photo ID will cause many more people to not be able to vote because they don't have a photo ID.

Please cite cases of those have been refused the right to vote because of lack of ID.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

OK, so I'm going to assume you're in favor of waiting periods for buying guns. Also, photo ID's being necessary to purchase guns at gun shows.

What's this have to do with voting for the POTUS? What I'm in favor for (or not) in any other area is moot to the discussion at hand.

If you've recently moved just prior to election day, unless you live in the same voting district your current driver's license won't work.

Most people know with ample time before they move that they are moving. It's called being responsible. I moved 6 weeks before the last election to a town 89 miles away from where I was registered. I didn't have any issues voting nor would I have if I needed to provide a valid ID.

Of course I don't want illegals to vote! Are they voting now? Is it a big problem?

It doesn't matter how big of a problem it is. If one does it, then it's a problem.

Photo ID will cause many more people to not be able to vote because they don't have a photo ID.

Which is an easy solution to rectify. You're trying to make it sound much harder than it is. You want to believe that you're giving up something to have to prove who you are to vote for our leader. You're not giving up anything. Not one thing.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Then they should get one. It's their choice and there is no impediment to doing it.

Exactly. Voting is a right. Voting isn't the law.

If you want to drive, by law you have to have insurance. If you don't, you can lose your license/go to jail.


Voting is a right that US Citizens have (most of them anyways). No one is taking that right away. No one (Despite what our friend wants to think).

That right is still in front of anyone who wants to vote. Simple process really.

 

[InTheLight]

What's this have to do with voting for the POTUS? What I'm in favor for (or not) in any other area is moot to the discussion at hand.

You said:

Just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean one shouldn't have to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them.

Just wondering, since gun ownership is a constitutional right, whether you are in favor of people having to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them when it comes to the 2nd amendment, just as you want them to prove it when it comes to the 15th amendment.

 

[mandym]

You said:

Just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean one shouldn't have to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them.

Just wondering, since gun ownership is a constitutional right, whether you are in favor of people having to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them when it comes to the 2nd amendment, just as you want them to prove it when it comes to the 15th amendment.

Yep, I do sounds like a left wing redirection question to me.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

You said:

Just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean one shouldn't have to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them.

Just wondering, since gun ownership is a constitutional right, whether you are in favor of people having to prove that the constitutional right belongs to them when it comes to the 2nd amendment, just as you want them to prove it when it comes to the 15th amendment.

We aren't talking about gun ownership. We're talking about voting for the POTUS.

You want to talk about gun ownership, start a thread about gun ownership.

 

[freeatlast]

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]I am currently against any special voter ID. In my opinion this voter ID is nothing but a political band aid that accomplishes little to nothing. Today it is no secret that some people vote by getting false ID (drivers license). I would like to have someone explain to me how having a voter ID will cure this? If they can now get a false ID how will another card keep them from getting just another false ID? Also how will it stop those who do it by absentee?[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

[SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0][SIZE=+0]I am currently against any special voter ID. In my opinion this voter ID is nothing but a political band aid that accomplishes little to nothing. Today it is no secret that some people vote by getting false ID (drivers license). I would like to have someone explain to me how having a voter ID will cure this? If they can now get a false ID how will another card keep them from getting just another false ID? Also how will it stop those who do it by absentee?[/SIZE][/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

It might not stop anything. It might discourage it.

I just don't understand how it's racist, or anything for that matter, for me to show and ID of who I am when I shop up at the polls to vote.