States Take Up Photo IDs at Polls Debate

[Sam Spade]

Link here.

States Take Up Photo IDs at Polls Debate

Wed Mar 30, 2:23 PM ET

By DEANNA WRENN, Associated Press Writer

INDIANAPOLIS - Legislation that would require voters to show photo identification before casting ballots has touched off fierce debate in three states, with opponents complaining the measures represent a return to the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow.

Lawmakers in Georgia and Indiana walked off the job to protest the proposals, which they say would deprive the poor, the elderly and minorities of the right to vote. Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, has already vetoed a similar measure and has vowed to do so again.

Republicans argue the bills would restore voter confidence and eliminate fraud without overly burdening voters, most of whom have driver's licenses or photo IDs anyway.

"I want everyone to be able to vote — once," said Indiana state Sen. Victor Heinold, a Republican.

Nineteen states require voters to show identification, but only five of those request photo ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Those states — Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and South Dakota — allow voters without a photo ID to present other forms of identification, such as a utility bill, or sign an affidavit of identity.

Critics say the measures in Indiana, Georgia and Wisconsin do not provide good alternatives for those without photo IDs.

Georgia's proposal, for example, would allow people without photo IDs to cast provisional ballots but require them to return within 48 hours with a picture ID.

State Sen. Vincent Fort, an Atlanta Democrat, said that amounts to "an updated form of Jim Crow," referring to segregation-era laws that kept blacks from voting. About 100 people rallied outside the Georgia Capitol last week to protest the legislation, which passed the state Senate on Tuesday and now goes to the House.

Wisconsin would require a government-issued photo ID from nearly all voters. Exceptions would be granted for domestic abuse victims, nursing home residents and those who have lost their driver's license.

Indiana would exempt only those who sign affidavits swearing they are too poor to get an ID or that they have religious objections to obtaining one.

"It's to break the spirit of the homeless, it's to break the spirit of the have-nots," complained Rep. Gregory Porter, a black Democrat from Indianapolis.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, noted that people already need photo ID for basic bank transactions. "Is everyone a racist? Are bank tellers racist?" he said. "I simply don't believe it is going to have the effect that they claim it does."

South Dakota enacted a photo ID law last year but allows voters to sign a one-paragraph affidavit of identity if they do not bring ID to the polls. In the November election, 2 percent of voters signed the affidavit, said Secretary of State Chris Nelson, a Republican. But some counties with large numbers of American Indians saw up to 25 percent of voters arrive at the polls without photo ID, he said.

"There are people that simply don't have photo identification," he said. "Some provision needs to be made for those people."

Similarly, in Georgia, the state chapter of AARP estimated that 36 percent of Georgia residents 75 or older lack driver's licenses.

Opponents of Indiana's measure contend there is no solid evidence of fraud at the polls. But supporters argue that perception matters as much as reality, and people who think fraud is going to cancel out their ballot will not bother to vote.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, plans to sign the bill if lawmakers approve it, which appears likely. The GOP controls both chambers of the Legislature, and versions of the bill have passed both the House and Senate.

Tim Storey, an election analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said he expects the push for tighter voter identification laws to continue.

"We've seen this exponential increase in bills related to the elections process in the last five years," Storey said.

Rokita, Indiana's secretary of state, said he believes his state will lead the way. "In five years, the whole nation is going to be like Indiana," he said. "A majority of people want this in their elections."
Thoughts?

[Dave from Michigan]

I like this idea.

[Jake]

To solve the problem of identity, give everyone over 18 and id card free that has their name, picture, and any other pertinent info.  Solves the problem right there. 

Democrats are showing themselves to be hypocrites. In January, they wasted a day in Congress crying about voter fraud, and now they won't do anything about it. Big suprise there.

[The Dowager Mod]

One of the reasons i voted for doyle was his promise to vetoe that bill.

[A18]

Democrats are showing themselves to be hypocrites. In January, they wasted a day in Congress crying about voter fraud, and now they won't do anything about it. Big suprise there.

Actually, they admitted they didn't question the validity of the results, but felt like whining about voting inaccuracies that exist in every election anyway.

No offense to the non-Boxer/jfern Democrats here.

[Gabu]

Am I missing something?  I can't really see what's so horrible about requiring voters to prove that they are who they say they are in an attempt to prevent fraud.

[KEmperor]

Am I missing something?  I can't really see what's so horrible about requiring voters to prove that they are who they say they are in an attempt to prevent fraud.

I absolutely agree.

[dazzleman]

This Democratic opposition is simply a ruse because the Democrats don't want to eliminate voter fraud.

Keep in mind that whatever their statements to the contrary, Democrats are in a much better position to promulgate voter fraud than Republicans.  Democrats have a virtual political monopoly in many large urban population centers, with many potential fraudulent votes.  Republican political power, on the other hand, is more decentralized and spread across a number of smaller towns, and it would take a large-scale collusion by Republicans across a large geographic area to drum up the number of fraudulent votes that a single corrupt urban Democratic machine can produce.

The idea that it's racist to require photo ID is really a new low in politics.  The term "racist" officially has no meaning now.  My state requires government-issue photo-ID to vote.  I guess we're also a throwback to the Jim Crow era.  What a load of garbage.  If people don't have driver's licenses, they can get a non-driver ID.

I don't happen to think that it's such a terrible thing to require a little effort from people to vote.  It makes their vote worth more.  I would have to question a person who would be incapable of getting a non-driver ID, even if he/she didn't have a license.  Photo ID is required for all sorts of transactions today besides voting.  The idea that people would oppose this on the grounds that it's racist is simply mind-boggling.

The Democrats never want to stop playing that race card.  As I said, their real goal is to prevent clamping down on fraud.

[WMS]

"Requiring voter photo ID is racist." Yep, we've been through that same level of crap in NM, and for the same reasons - the NM Dems don't want clean voter rolls, since that would expose their fake voters here. I worked in a voter bureau for four years - there are enough holes in voter registration law to drive several trucks through...

[Alcon]

Am I missing something?  I can't really see what's so horrible about requiring voters to prove that they are who they say they are in an attempt to prevent fraud.

The major worry is that more wealthy people with access to TV and the media would be more likely to get the message, and many poor people might never find out. This is why I am fine with this, assuming a major education drive is instituted a few years prior to requiring IDs.

Also, states like North Dakota should not be able to continue their "show up and vote - you don't even need ID or registration!" policies. North Dakota may not be in play, but this is stupid. Small-town knowing of everyone is not a valid excuse to allow election fraud so easily.

[opebo]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

[dazzleman]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

I guess that means Democrats generally don't have licenses, or can't get a non-driver ID?

Your reasoning abilities are highly deficient.  You've been occupied too long with opium and ladyboys.

[opebo]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

I guess that means Democrats generally don't have licenses, or can't get a non-driver ID?

Your reasoning abilities are highly deficient. 

Certainly the numbers of Democrats who may not have such I.D.s will far exceed the numbers of Republicans lacking them.  Why do you persist in ad hominem attacks?

[Jake]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

Are Democrats stupid and uninformed?

[opebo]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

Are Democrats stupid and uninformed?

Many Democrats are very poor.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To be honest, the entire system of voting in the U.S is so f***ed up that measures like this (whether you agree with them or not) are like those nutty cancer "cures" cranks are so fond of.

[Jake]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

Are Democrats stupid and uninformed?

Many Democrats are very poor.

Are the poor stupid opebo, or just poor. 

[dazzleman]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

I guess that means Democrats generally don't have licenses, or can't get a non-driver ID?

Your reasoning abilities are highly deficient. 

Certainly the numbers of Democrats who may not have such I.D.s will far exceed the numbers of Republicans lacking them.  Why do you persist in ad hominem attacks?

If Democratic voters are too dysfunctional to have a photo ID, then that's their problem.  It's pathetic that Democrats resort to this type of reasoning when it clearly makes no sense.

I don't mean to attack you personally, but when you make statements that have no reasoning behind them, you can't expect to be complimented on your reasoning skills.  You might just as well say that this plan to require IDs is responsible for global warming.  It makes as much sense.

[A18]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat fraud.

Correct.

[opebo]

The purpose of this bill is to suppress Democrat voter turnout.

Are Democrats stupid and uninformed?

Many Democrats are very poor.

Are the poor stupid opebo, or just poor. 

What does stupidity have to do with it?  The majority of Republican voters are stupid, but because of their greater prosperity they are more likely to have ID.  Many of the destitute and homeless may wish to vote Democrat, but will be excluded by this requirement.

[Jake]

What does stupidity have to do with it?  The majority of Republican voters are stupid, but because of their greater prosperity they are more likely to have ID.  Many of the destitute and homeless may wish to vote Democrat, but will be excluded by this requirement.

It's not hard to get a free Photo ID opebo.  Come back to reality

[WMS]

To be honest, the entire system of voting in the U.S is so f***ed up that measures like this (whether you agree with them or not) are like those nutty cancer "cures" cranks are so fond of.

Al has a point. From my own experiences, everything about the system needs an overhaul.

[Alcon]

Again, the problem is not soley buying a photo ID, but also knowing to buy one.

[ATFFL]

Again, the problem is not soley buying a photo ID, but also knowing to buy one.

How about letting people know when they register to vote?

Or including a big flyer on red paper saying "BRING PHOTO ID" and listing all accepted ID types with the voter registration card mailings.

Or buy whole page ads in local newspapers and 15 second spots on local TV.

[Citizen James]

There's an old saying... Be careful what you wish for.

I see nothing wrong with requiring IDs, as long as all potential voters are able to get government issued ID's at no cost.  Otherwise you have a de facto poll tax in the ID cost - which would be unconstitutional.

Perhaps you could get some comprimise by allowing the system of counting votes to be more transperent.  (No more 'black box' voting machines - the code must be open to inspection and recompilation in order to be approved).

I can understand the opposition to voter purges.   A number of people who had similar names to felons were purged back in 2000 in Florida - and thus not allowed to vote despite not being felons.  (Try googling your name sometime - most names are more common than you think in a nation of half a billion).  A purge of legitmate voters which could well have changed the outcome of the election.

We may well need a 'right to vote' embeded in the constitution to get people to take this seriously.   Too many people don't really care if some people are prevented from voting, so long as they get what they want.

And for that matter we need to upgrade and standardize our voting systems.  Why is it that urban voters have to wait in line for hours, while in the middle of suburbia its a few minutes at most.  The ability to vote should not be inversely proportional to the wealth of the area you live in.  We need at least minimal standards for voting.

So yes, I'm ok with requiring IDs.  But that's just the tip of the iceberg in our seriously messed up system.