Hi new poster!-Questions about Republican supported voter laws and turnout?

[Green State]

Hi I'm a new poster and I hope I will be welcomed with open arms here!

However, I've been following as of recently the big GOP push to get new voter laws into effect "that would prevent people who are supposed to vote from voting".

In my opinion  this is just an attempt by the reactionary GOP to oppress working class voters, blacks, Latinos, and women from voting so their candidates can win in critical states like Floridia, Wisconsin and elsewhere next year. 

However, I don't know much about the details of these voter laws and how they will effect the election so I would like to hear from those more educated and informed on them then I.

Thank you!

[Tender Branson]

Hi Green State ! Welcome to this Forum !

I'm a liberal Democrat (don't worry about my current GOP avatar and Romney avatar) and I strongly support the Republican-backed measures to introduce photo-IDs in the US to make elections there more transparent.

Of course I only support laws in which the state assures that those who don't have a photo ID yet, will get one for free (the costs should not be too high if you estimate a price of 10$ per ID which could be valid for 10 years without renewing).

It's just what we Europeans are used to, everyone who wants to vote needs to bring a valid photo ID (usually a passport, personal ID card or driving license) with them and also their government sent voting information card.

I've said some times before that I don't believe that these laws really depress turnout in general or Democratic turnout specifically: For example, Indiana passed a photo-ID law in 2004 or so and yet Obama won the state in 2008 for the first time with record turnout and a huge swing/trend compared with 2004.

If the state provides the relatively cheap free IDs to people who cannot afford them to make elections safer and more transparent, what speaks against such laws ? The only thing that people would have to do is get their ID, which is a task of a few hours. If they are not willing to do this simple task, they are to blame for themselves anyway.

[MilesC56]

Welcome!

I'm kinda the opposite of Tender on this issue; I'm a conservative Democrat and I am appalled at such efforts by the Republicans. Even as a white male myself, its easy to see that these laws are designed to foster a "bleached" electorate. Its amazing the lengths that the GOP will go to in order to impede the President's electoral fortunes.

Eugene Robinson wrote a great opinion piece on this in the Washington Post.

[Senator Sbane]

Common sense would dictate that every citizen automatically is registered (having to register to vote really doesn't make sense to me) to vote and needs to prove their identity with some form of ID, some form of which should be available for free. I don't think ID requirements really depress the vote that much, registration requirements do though.

[Green State]

Welcome!

I'm kinda the opposite of Tender on this issue; I'm a conservative Democrat and I am appalled at such efforts by the Republicans. Even as a white male myself, its easy to see that these laws are designed to foster a "bleached" electorate. Its amazing the lengths that the GOP will go to in order to impede the President's electoral fortunes.

That's what I figure too!

The GOP always has an ulterior motive for pushing things like this

Hell most teabaggers wouldn't mind Jim Crow coming back!

[Governor Scott]

Welcome to the forum, Green State!

Here's my personal take on this issue: first of all, there is no such thing as 'free voter IDs.'  Even if the voters don't have to pay for these IDs directly, they'll be paying for them in taxes.  This is where I'm a bit weary of the constitutionality of some of these laws, because poll taxes are illegal.  But in any case, I'm personally in favor of ID laws that are effective but don't disenfranchise the voters or force them to foot the bill (one fair solution could be, perhaps, permitting drivers license to double as voter ID).  Nevertheless, I'm not comfortable with the vast amounts of restrictions on voters' rights that the Republicans have been proposing lately.  Voter fraud should be addressed in states and communities where it exists, but not a single law-abiding voter should be disenfranchised as a concomitant, especially since fraud is relatively minor in most parts of the country.

Now, to answer your question, here is a convenient guide to look at that should have about everything regarding these laws.  I didn't look deeply into it, as I pretty much just googled 'voter id laws' and that was one of the first results to come up, but I'd suggest checking it out.

[hopper]

Well in Georgia and Indiana they had voter ID in 2008 and there was no problems. In PA though the State House of Representatives Majority Leader admitted that PA put in place voter so Romney could carry PA. Now that I have a problem with. They did that in PA to supress turnout in Philly because obviously alot of black people live in Philly and they probably don't have a driver's liscence I think.

I know a black state senator sponsored a bill allowing voter ID in Rhode Island. Even Mark Morial(the leader of the National Urban League) said on C-Span that he doesn't have a problem with voter ID as long as the state pays for the usage of voter id.

[krazen1211]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsensical hysteria.

[I left.]

I support having to show ID to vote, in theory. It would require a less absurd voter registration system, for one thing, and the possibility for everyone to acquire an ID easily.

That said, it seems obvious why Republicans are pushing so hard for it.

[MilesC56]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsensical hysteria.

Just keep drinking the party Kool Aid.

[a Person]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsensical hysteria.

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on the PPACA.
Maybe krazen and other right-wingers will stop their nonsensical hysteria now.

[Vosem]

Well, I'm a legitimate Republican (the first one on this thread). While my views are eclectic and don't necessarily line up with the party's (I support, for instance, the Department of Education, abortion, and gay marriage), on this I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea to have to present an ID at the polling booth -- even if fraud isn't a problem today, it may become one in the future. And I don't think it discriminates against Democrats so much as it discriminates against lazy people, who are spread equally throughout both parties.

[krazen1211]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsensical hysteria.

Just keep drinking the party Kool Aid.

What party koolaid? Photo voter ID is supported by a majority of Democrats in recent polls.

[MSG]

I would be glad to go along with these laws if they didnt clearly target certain people and groups. For instance almost all of the states make exception for military ids that dont have expiration dates or have expired before the day of voting yet they do not extend the same thing to college id's which in many cases are government issued id's since they are state run institutions. Some states dont even except them. Which group supports the reps and which doesnt.

Secondly why cant we just have universal registration why does one need to go through all of these hoops to vote. The only logical reason to create barriers to voting is not to stop voting fraud but to disenfranchise. If you cant win the vote suppress the vote, weird how this push came after 08 not 04 or 00 when the election were actually contentious (not claiming voter fraud just saying.)  Words mean nothing to me action shows your true motives. You combine voter id with universal registration and ill be right their helping you pass it. Until then your motives are under suspect in my view.

[krazen1211]

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsensical hysteria.

Thankfully the Supreme Court has already ruled on the PPACA.
Maybe krazen and other right-wingers will stop their nonsensical hysteria now.

Your comparison is accurate. The GOP is seeking a proper legislative repeal of the PPACA; Democrats are more than welcome to seek a proper legislative repeal of the highly popular voter ID laws.

[MilesC56]

Rasmussen is out with a poll today trying to drum up support for such measures.

[Tender Branson]

Rasmussen is out with a poll today trying to drum up support for such measures.

They don't need to drum it up. Every single poll shows that Americans by about 70-80% favor photo-ID laws.

[Green State]

trying to drum up support for such measures.

They don't need to drum it up. Every single poll shows that Americans by about 70-80% favor photo-ID laws.

If the American people only knew the truth about this.........

[pbrower2a]

Well, I'm a legitimate Republican (the first one on this thread). While my views are eclectic and don't necessarily line up with the party's (I support, for instance, the Department of Education, abortion, and gay marriage), on this I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea to have to present an ID at the polling booth -- even if fraud isn't a problem today, it may become one in the future. And I don't think it discriminates against Democrats so much as it discriminates against lazy people, who are spread equally throughout both parties.

The most common vote fraud is by administrators of the vote -- people who can 'lose' applications selectively, tamper with machines, misrepresent the count, or treat voters with discrimination. A signature should normally be adequate, as it has long been the standard for getting access to bank accounts and safety deposit boxes. If it is good enough for cautious bankers because forged signatures are definitive proof of fraud it should be good enough for the vote.

[The Mikado]

So is anyone going to say something about this guy's sig, or are we all just pretending to ignore it?

[oakvale]

So is anyone going to say something about this guy's sig, or are we all just pretending to ignore it?

He's not an interesting enough troll for anyone to bother commenting.