Voter ID Issue

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Easy for you to say, but for some people - actually a specific class of people who tend to vote for one particular party - it represents a hardship.

Help me understand why this is such a hardship given enough lead time. In Alabama for instance, the first time you apply for a DL or non-driver ID you need to have any of the following:

Certified U.S. birth certificate issued by an agency designated by state or federal authority.

U.S. passport.

Alabama identification card.

Alabama driver license.

Certificate of naturalization.

Certificate of citizenship.

U.S. certificate of birth abroad.

Resident alien card.

Valid foreign passport with valid U.S. immigration document.

PLUS a Social Security Card

And if your document from the first list isn't a photo ID, you'll also need one of these:

U.S. state-issued driver license or non-driver ID card.

Current international driver license/permit.

Marriage license.

U.S. armed forces driver license.

U.S. military DD-214.

Professional license issued by a state or federal agency.

Selective Service card.

Veterans Administration card.

Current medical insurance identification card.

U.S. military ID card.

ID card issued by school with photo.

School enrollment form (DL-1/93).

Certified school record:

Certified letter from school;

GED certificate;

Certificate of graduation.

W-2 tax form, along with copy of previous year’s filed forms (tax return).

Documents from court of record:

Divorce decree;

Adoption decree;

Name-change decree;

Bankruptcy decree.

Probation or release documents issued by state or federal department of correction with photo ID card issued by the same authority, or felon ID card issued by the sheriff of the county of the applicant’s release.

So for instance you might have to produce a birth certificate, SS Card and a marriage license. And pay $23.50

After that for renewals every 4 years you just produce your existing ID card and pay $23.50.

Why is that such a hardship? Especially if we reduced or waived the fee for those who can't afford it? For instance, I know that in 2016 my license will expire. 2016 is a midterm election year. So I know to the day when my existing DL will expire and I know when the election is. I have plenty of lead time to get that renewed before the election. You're telling me, even without a car, that it's so onerous to expect me some time in the last year of my license to get over to the DMV somewhere and renew it?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

:rolleyes:/>

I just wanted you to be happy. I'll go along with whatever you think. Seriously.

Honestly, I've just stopped caring what you think about this.

That's the great thing about you, always gracious.

I tend to respond in the same spirit in which I'm addressed.

Me too. I can always judge someone's spirit over the internet and I always allow their demeanor to determine mine.

[homersapien 11,373]

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

You've got to be ******* kidding me.

Not at all. Why in ******* would you say that?

Any ID at all is disenfranchising?

No, a new requirement for a photo ID in order to vote is disenfranchising.

[AFTiger 282]

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

You've got to be ******* kidding me.

Not at all. Why in ******* would you say that?

Any ID at all is disenfranchising?

No, a new requirement for a photo ID in order to vote is disenfranchising.

It only disenfranchises fraudulent voters. Should be a non-issue.

[homersapien 11,373]

Easy for you to say, but for some people - actually a specific class of people who tend to vote for one particular party - it represents a hardship.

Help me understand why this is such a hardship given enough lead time. In Alabama for instance, the first time you apply for a DL or non-driver ID you need to have any of the following:

Certified U.S. birth certificate issued by an agency designated by state or federal authority.

U.S. passport.

Alabama identification card.

Alabama driver license.

Certificate of naturalization.

Certificate of citizenship.

U.S. certificate of birth abroad.

Resident alien card.

Valid foreign passport with valid U.S. immigration document.

PLUS a Social Security Card

And if your document from the first list isn't a photo ID, you'll also need one of these:

U.S. state-issued driver license or non-driver ID card.

Current international driver license/permit.

Marriage license.

U.S. armed forces driver license.

U.S. military DD-214.

Professional license issued by a state or federal agency.

Selective Service card.

Veterans Administration card.

Current medical insurance identification card.

U.S. military ID card.

ID card issued by school with photo.

School enrollment form (DL-1/93).

Certified school record:

Certified letter from school;

GED certificate;

Certificate of graduation.

W-2 tax form, along with copy of previous year’s filed forms (tax return).

Documents from court of record:

Divorce decree;

Adoption decree;

Name-change decree;

Bankruptcy decree.

Probation or release documents issued by state or federal department of correction with photo ID card issued by the same authority, or felon ID card issued by the sheriff of the county of the applicant’s release.

So for instance you might have to produce a birth certificate, SS Card and a marriage license. And pay $23.50

After that for renewals every 4 years you just produce your existing ID card and pay $23.50.

Why is that such a hardship? Especially if we reduced or waived the fee for those who can't afford it? For instance, I know that in 2016 my license will expire. 2016 is a midterm election year. So I know to the day when my existing DL will expire and I know when the election is. I have plenty of lead time to get that renewed before the election. You're telling me, even without a car, that it's so onerous to expect me some time in the last year of my license to get over to the DMV somewhere and renew it?

Look, I understand that you reject the idea that a photo ID doesn't serve to disenfranchise a lot of poorer voters. It get it. OK?

But based on what I have read from experts, including Federal judges, as a practical matter it does. (see post #217).

Now if you simply don't want to accept the evidence or the judgement of people in a position to know, fine. But quit trying to make the same point to me over and over. Just go back to the beginning of the thead and re-read my responses. I don't really have anything new to say. We are just repeating ourselves.

I have also agreed with you that a photo ID doesn't necessarily have to disenfranchise voters. I even proposed such a hypothetical system (post #113) that you rejected out of hand. There may be other ways to avoid this disenfranchisment. Perhaps polling workers could take everyone's picture the next time they vote and supply a photo voting ID that would be the only acceptable form of voting ID for all future elections (no DLs allowed). That way everyone starts out from the exact came place.

But my greater assertion is that there is no existing problem that is sufficient to do anything regarding a photo ID. You may disagree with that also , but no one has presented any evidence otherwise. And I have also said about all I can think of regarding that.

So, if you come up with something different I will respond, but if you want to keep repeating the same arguments over and over, I will just refer you to prior posts.

[Ouchyfish 67]

It disenfranchises voters the way a drug test disenfranchises job applicants.

[homersapien 11,373]

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

You've got to be ******* kidding me.

Not at all. Why in ******* would you say that?

Any ID at all is disenfranchising?

No, a new requirement for a photo ID in order to vote is disenfranchising.

It only disenfranchises fraudulent voters. Should be a non-issue.

See post #217. A lot of people in a position to know disagree.

[homersapien 11,373]

It disenfranchises voters the way a drug test disenfranchises job applicants.

See post #217. A lot of experts in a position to know would disagree.

[homersapien 11,373]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

:rolleyes:/>

I just wanted you to be happy. I'll go along with whatever you think. Seriously.

Honestly, I've just stopped caring what you think about this.

That's the great thing about you, always gracious.

I tend to respond in the same spirit in which I'm addressed.

Me too. I can always judge someone's spirit over the internet and I always allow their demeanor to determine mine.

Careful, I got that penalty box for doing that.

[Ouchyfish 67]

But based on what I have read from experts, including Federal judges, as a practical matter it does. (see post #217).

If they could come up with a free voter ID card that is like a drivers license, would you be ok with it then? The examples you provided seemed hung up on the cost of the IDs.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Look, I understand that you reject the idea that a photo ID doesn't serve to disenfranchise a lot of poorer voters. It get it. OK?

But based on what I have read from experts, including Federal judges, as a practical matter it does. (see post #217).

Now if you simply don't want to accept the evidence or the judgement of people in a position to know, fine. But quit trying to make the same point to me over and over. Just go back to the beginning of the thead and re-read my responses. I don't really have anything new to say. We are just repeating ourselves.

I have also agreed with you that a photo ID doesn't necessarily have to disenfranchise voters. I even proposed such a hypothetical system (post #113) that you rejected out of hand. There may be other ways to avoid this disenfranchisment. Perhaps polling workers could take everyone's picture the next time they vote and supply a photo voting ID that would be the only acceptable form of voting ID for all future elections (no DLs allowed). That way everyone starts out from the exact came place.

But my greater assertion is that there is no existing problem that is sufficient to do anything regarding a photo ID. You may disagree with that also , but no one has presented any evidence otherwise. And I have also said about all I can think of regarding that.

So, if you come up with something different I will respond, but if you want to keep repeating the same arguments over and over, I will just refer you to prior posts.

Your links all dealt with specific implementations of the photo ID requirements that also involved issues like costs, lead time, and other factors. They didn't deal with just the notion of needing a ID.

But separately, I'm asking why obtaining a photo ID is a hardship. What about what you need to obtain one makes it such a hardship if other considerations like the lead time and so on are addressed?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Me too. I can always judge someone's spirit over the internet and I always allow their demeanor to determine mine.

I can read flippancy and being a smartass pretty well. The tone of my response was something you earned.

[homersapien 11,373]

But based on what I have read from experts, including Federal judges, as a practical matter it does. (see post #217).

If they could come up with a free voter ID card that is like a drivers license, would you be ok with it then? The examples you provided seemed hung up on the cost of the IDs.

That it should be free is a given. Otherwise, it would be the equivalent of a poll tax.

I have already proposed two possible systems to eliminate the barriers, but they would both add to the cost and complexity of running elections, so I would still oppose a photo ID in principle based on that and the fact we don't need it.

I suspect that if you really could remove the barriers that would affect certain classes of people the Republicans who are pushing for this would suddenly lose interest.

[homersapien 11,373]

Look, I understand that you reject the idea that a photo ID doesn't serve to disenfranchise a lot of poorer voters. It get it. OK?

But based on what I have read from experts, including Federal judges, as a practical matter it does. (see post #217).

Now if you simply don't want to accept the evidence or the judgement of people in a position to know, fine. But quit trying to make the same point to me over and over. Just go back to the beginning of the thead and re-read my responses. I don't really have anything new to say. We are just repeating ourselves.

I have also agreed with you that a photo ID doesn't necessarily have to disenfranchise voters. I even proposed such a hypothetical system (post #113) that you rejected out of hand. There may be other ways to avoid this disenfranchisment. Perhaps polling workers could take everyone's picture the next time they vote and supply a photo voting ID that would be the only acceptable form of voting ID for all future elections (no DLs allowed). That way everyone starts out from the exact came place.

But my greater assertion is that there is no existing problem that is sufficient to do anything regarding a photo ID. You may disagree with that also , but no one has presented any evidence otherwise. And I have also said about all I can think of regarding that.

So, if you come up with something different I will respond, but if you want to keep repeating the same arguments over and over, I will just refer you to prior posts.

Your links all dealt with specific implementations of the photo ID requirements that also involved issues like costs, lead time, and other factors. They didn't deal with just the notion of needing a ID.

But separately, I'm asking why obtaining a photo ID is a hardship. What about what you need to obtain one makes it such a hardship if other considerations like the lead time and so on are addressed?

In theory, if all the factors that create the hardships are eliminated, nothing. Naturally.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I find it interesting that 71% of Latinos support voter ID when there are statistically more Latinos living in poverty than any other group...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

[AUGradinTX 0]

This is also interesting...

Minnesota seniors cut up AARP cards in support of voter ID laws

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/minnesota-seniors-cut-up-aarp-cards-in-support-of-voter-id-laws/

Voter ID rules protect seniors, minorities from fraudsters, says new study

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/voter-id-rules-protect-seniors-minorities-from-fraudsters-says-new-study/#ixzz2dOiSEXPv

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/voter-id-rules-protect-seniors-minorities-from-fraudsters-says-new-study/

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

That is hilarious. I don't know about every, but I am sure there are a few who would. Maybe we could have the War on Voter Fraud and create a new branch of the DHS.

[homersapien 11,373]

I find it interesting that 71% of Latinos support voter ID when there are statistically more Latinos living in poverty than any other group...

I find it interesting that 30% of Louisiana Republicans think Obama was responsible for the Katrina response so what's your point?

[homersapien 11,373]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

You betcha, whatever the "dear leader" says :-\

What a DA post. I feel dumber for reading it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

You betcha, whatever the "dear leader" says :-\/>

What a DA post. I feel dumber for reading it.

I don't think it was serious. Was it? I thought it was humorous. I understood it as both sides would instantly flip positions.

[homersapien 11,373]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

You betcha, whatever the "dear leader" says :-\/>

What a DA post. I feel dumber for reading it.

I don't think it was serious. Was it? I thought it was humorous. I understood it as both sides would instantly flip positions.

You know, you may be right. Perhaps I misunderstood it. At least it could be taken that way.

If so, I apologize.

It just doesn't apply to me. I don't need Obama to inform me of the facts. These accusations of Obamaphilia get tiresome, and this instantly reminded me of Raptor's "Lord and master" crap. See - that's what happens when a forum degrades.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

You betcha, whatever the "dear leader" says :-\/>

What a DA post. I feel dumber for reading it.

I don't think it was serious. Was it? I thought it was humorous. I understood it as both sides would instantly flip positions.

You know, you may be right. Perhaps I misunderstood it. At least it could be taken that way.

If so, I apologize.

It just doesn't apply to me. I don't need Obama to inform me of the facts. These accusations of Obamaphilia get tiresome, and this instantly reminded me of Raptor's "Lord and master" crap. See - that's what happens when a forum degrades.

Wait a minute. Is Raptor serious?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I suspect that if you really could remove the barriers that would affect certain classes of people the Republicans who are pushing for this would suddenly lose interest.

Sounds like an excellent way to call their bluff. Craft a photo ID for voting bill that specifically addresses all of the points of contention we've mentioned that make such a measure cause disenfranchisement. Force the Republicans to put up or shut up that all they care about is eliminating voter fraud.

[homersapien 11,373]

I bet if Obama came out tomorrow supporting voter ID just about every poster here would reverse their position and try to rationalize it.

You betcha, whatever the "dear leader" says :-\/>

What a DA post. I feel dumber for reading it.

I don't think it was serious. Was it? I thought it was humorous. I understood it as both sides would instantly flip positions.

You know, you may be right. Perhaps I misunderstood it. At least it could be taken that way.

If so, I apologize.

It just doesn't apply to me. I don't need Obama to inform me of the facts. These accusations of Obamaphilia get tiresome, and this instantly reminded me of Raptor's "Lord and master" crap. See - that's what happens when a forum degrades.

Wait a minute. Is Raptor serious?

He's not that creative. It has to come from the heart.