Picture this: Why a photo ID for voting is reasonable

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2011 11:35 PM GMT
    Democrats insist that photo IDs are an unnecessary impediment to voting. So why is it they are ok with photo ID requirements for travelling and gun licenses? Are those racist requirements of the state as well?

    http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Hines-Picture-this-Why-a-photo-ID-for-voting-is-1921157.php

    IF we can stop everyone's knee from jerking a moment, we need a rational discussion of the growing number of proposals to require picture ID for voting.

    Some of the ideas stink. They include the version of the photo ID requirement enacted this year by the Republican majority in the Georgia Legislature and cleared under the Voting Rights Act late last month by the Bush administration's Justice Department.

    Among the problems with the Georgia approach is the possible fee for acquiring an approved form of identification. If it looks like a poll tax and walks like a poll tax, it's a poll tax.

    The Georgia procedure was challenged last week in federal court, and modest good luck to the plaintiffs on some narrow grounds.

    But there is nothing inherently undemocratic about the idea of being required to show a piece of government-issued identification with a picture in order to cast a ballot.

    Now and then, (OK, rarely) I get the urge to give the American Civil Liberties Union a good shaking. This is one of the issues that puts me in that mood. I wasn't feeling lonely, even though I'm stuck on this issue with some weird folks. Quietly some open-minded political scientists had assured me that they agreed there was no congenital problem with requiring voters to show a picture ID, although the issue should not be viewed alone. I concur — and will flesh out that point in a moment.

    Then, the same day that opponents were hitting the courthouse in Atlanta, the Commission on Federal Election Reform, a pretty distinguished group led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, issued its report.

    Among its recommendations was that prospective voters be required to present a form of photo ID when they arrive at the polls.

    The commission, apparently seeking to work out all the kinks in what it knew would be a controversial proposal as well as to build in safeguards, may have overrefined the point. It specifies use of the REAL ID, a card that flows from a new federal requirement for state-issued drivers licenses. Among the issues that the REAL ID would answer is that of whether a prospective voter is, as required by law, a citizen. There could be other solutions as well.

    Three of the commission's 20 members dissented from the photo ID proposal.

    Former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, of South Dakota, in a statement joined by Raul Yzaguirre, an Arizona State University professor and former president of the National Council of La Raza, and Spencer Overton of the George Washington University School of Law, made this overall point: "For voters who have traditionally faced barriers to voting — racial and ethnic minorities, Native Americans, the disabled and language minorities, the indigent and the elderly — these recommendations appear to be more about ballot security than access to the ballot."

    Both sides of the coin are important. And both sides need to be emphasized — not only in law but in local, state and national efforts to get people registered (including with a photo ID if that's the consensus) and to the polls.

    Keep in mind that the photo ID requirement meets the race-sensitive standards of Carter — as well as commission witness Andrew Young, the former U.S. House member and diplomat who got his start in the civil rights movement with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

    As with so many campaign and electoral issues, this boils down to a question of whose ox is being gored. Democrats want low thresholds, with what they believe will be more of their voters enfranchised; Republicans want tough security and the concomitant smaller turnout.

    And why does each group want its view to prevail? Because each believes it advantages its own preferred outcome.

    "There is bad faith on both sides," noted Andrew Gumbel, a Los Angeles-based correspondent for The (London) Independent who is just out with Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America (Nation Books, 2005). "Just as Republicans are overkeen (in ballot security), people on the other side are excessively lackadaisical."

    Gumbel, in a telephone interview last week, declared himself "agnostic" on the issue of picture ID for voters. "It's a real knotty problem" as America faces a necessary clean up of voter rolls without encouraging voter suppression.

    What's the big problem?

    "Both parties have spent 100 years designing the (election) system to suit them" Gumbel said.

    That's why the recommendation of the bipartisan Carter-Baker commission, at least on the issue of requiring photo ID for voting, seems a reasonable step on a long road to reform.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2011 11:41 PM GMT
    One does not need a gun or to travel across state lines to vote. A spurious argument to back a racist policy that has already been proven completely unnecessary as voter fraud is not an issue in the US. Never has been.

  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Dec 27, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    2005 article??? whaaa? is this the best response you can do in relation to the article that I posted earlier that was referring to current legislative matters that was posted yesterday?


    Also, I suggest if you so clearly want to argue against my points, that you don't go around flooding the board with more articles that you've dug up on the internet and actually post in the relevant topic at hand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2011 11:45 PM GMT
    Indiana Democratic Party Head Resigns as Fraud Probe Heats Up

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2024423/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2011 11:52 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said2005 article??? whaaa? is this the best response you can do in relation to the article that I posted earlier that was referring to current legislative matters that was posted yesterday?


    Also, I suggest if you so clearly want to argue against my points, that you don't go around flooding the board with more articles that you've dug up on the internet and actually post in the relevant topic at hand.


    The points are not only relevant but they directly address the issue of whether or not photo ID is as racist or problematic to voting as you seem to think. Quite the opposite - they help to reduce voter fraud. I can see however why those like yourself might have a problem with that.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Dec 27, 2011 11:55 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said2005 article??? whaaa? is this the best response you can do in relation to the article that I posted earlier that was referring to current legislative matters that was posted yesterday?


    Also, I suggest if you so clearly want to argue against my points, that you don't go around flooding the board with more articles that you've dug up on the internet and actually post in the relevant topic at hand.


    The points are not only relevant but they directly address the issue of whether or not photo ID is as racist or problematic to voting as you seem to think. Quite the opposite - they help to reduce voter fraud. I can see however why those like yourself might have a problem with that.


    You've yet to address my query of why you posted this as a separate topic? Me thinks you flood the board with articles so things that you don't want others to see are pushed down on the board. Any reasonable human being would just post in the relevant topic and not make a new post every time they had a counter argument.

    Also, please see Christian's statement above.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 27, 2011 11:57 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said2005 article??? whaaa? is this the best response you can do in relation to the article that I posted earlier that was referring to current legislative matters that was posted yesterday?


    Also, I suggest if you so clearly want to argue against my points, that you don't go around flooding the board with more articles that you've dug up on the internet and actually post in the relevant topic at hand.


    The points are not only relevant but they directly address the issue of whether or not photo ID is as racist or problematic to voting as you seem to think. Quite the opposite - they help to reduce voter fraud. I can see however why those like yourself might have a problem with that.


    You've yet to address my query of why you posted this as a separate topic? Me thinks you flood the board with articles so things that you don't want others to see are pushed down on the board. Any reasonable human being would just post in the relevant topic and not make a new post every time they had a counter argument.

    Also, please see Christian's statement above.


    Yeah like I'd take his word for it considering he's consistently wrong on practically every economic issue that exists except for the drug war. I'm sorry you feel you have to muzzle me to post your own biased and partisan articles with ridiculous headlines. Maybe you should consider topic titles that are more inclusive and less partisan if you want to convince others to read them.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Dec 28, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said
    riddler78 said
    nanidesukedo said2005 article??? whaaa? is this the best response you can do in relation to the article that I posted earlier that was referring to current legislative matters that was posted yesterday?


    Also, I suggest if you so clearly want to argue against my points, that you don't go around flooding the board with more articles that you've dug up on the internet and actually post in the relevant topic at hand.


    The points are not only relevant but they directly address the issue of whether or not photo ID is as racist or problematic to voting as you seem to think. Quite the opposite - they help to reduce voter fraud. I can see however why those like yourself might have a problem with that.


    You've yet to address my query of why you posted this as a separate topic? Me thinks you flood the board with articles so things that you don't want others to see are pushed down on the board. Any reasonable human being would just post in the relevant topic and not make a new post every time they had a counter argument.

    Also, please see Christian's statement above.


    Yeah like I'd take his word for it considering he's consistently wrong on practically every economic issue that exists except for the drug war. I'm sorry you feel you have to muzzle me to post your own biased and partisan articles with ridiculous headlines. Maybe you should consider topic titles that are more inclusive and less partisan if you want to convince others to read them.


    For one, you obviously read it if you posted this. You didn't just drag this 6 year old article out of your ass minutes after my related topic out of sheer coincidence.

    Secondly, if you wanna insult my partisan titles, you should hop on board with insulting the partisan titles of your conserva-posse counterparts.

    Also, pay close attention to the part about actual convictions for voting fraud:

    http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/real-fraud-is-suppression-1.1244515#axzz1hmaS2kGZ
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 1:05 AM GMT
    Yep - because we have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to voter fraud. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Dec 28, 2011 2:14 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidYep - because we have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to voter fraud. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895


    Note that this is absentee ballots. Not in person voting.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/26/1048946/-Evidence-of-Massive-REPUBLICAN-VOTER-Fraud

    There's some more numbers and an interesting republican counterpart.


    and another fun one..
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 2:19 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidYep - because we have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to voter fraud. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895


    Newsmax is not a credible source.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 2:24 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidYep - because we have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to voter fraud. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895


    Newsmax is not a credible source.


    And yet, the news article and charges were credible ones.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Dec 28, 2011 2:27 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidYep - because we have nothing to be concerned about when it comes to voter fraud. http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895


    Newsmax is not a credible source.


    And yet, the news article and charges were credible ones.


    Again...absentee ballots is what that article says that they defrauded...not in person, which is the issue for voter ID
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 2:47 AM GMT
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/07/29/despite-what-democrats-claim-voter-fraud-is-real


    Despite What Democrats Claim, Voter Fraud is Real

    Back in April, in a story that did not receive the attention it deserved, a Tunica County, Miss., jury found Lessadolla Sowers, who have been identified as a member of the executive committee of the county’s NAACP chapter, guilty of 10 counts of fraudulently casting absentee ballots in the name of others.

    Sowers, The Daily Caller reported Friday, received a five-year prison term for each of the ten counts—for a total of 50 years– but will be allowed to serve those terms concurrently, meaning at the same time.

    The problem of voter fraud, despite what the Democrats say, is very, very real. The question is what to do about it. [Check out our editorial cartoons on the Democratic Party.]

    A number of states are considering or have passed reforms that make it tougher to cheat at the polls, most of which center on requiring voters to produce a photo ID before they can cast a ballot, a seemingly simple idea taken from everyday life that most people support. After all, you have to show a government-issued photo ID to board an airplane, rent a car, cash a check, buy liquor, enter office buildings in major metropolitan areas, and even before you can get married so why not have to produce a photo ID before you can vote?

    Well to many Democrats, who seem to believe that voter fraud–despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary–is merely a figment of the Republicans’ collective imagination, asking people to show a photo ID before voting is akin to the restoration of "separate by equal" schools and segregated lunch counters.

    Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz who chairs the Democratic National Committee called photo ID an effort to "literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally—and very transparently—block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates."

    Once someone explained the meaning of the word "literally" to her, Wasserman Schultz backed off the analogy but not from the sentiment. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, who apparently didn’t get the memo from Wasserman Schultz, called voter ID one "of the last existing legal pillars of Jim Crow."

    The Reverend Jesse Jackson said photo ID was the equivalent of "a poll tax." Former President Bill Clinton said of the effort to enacted voter ID legislation that there had never been "in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today."

    Others have attacked the plan because it would be too expensive to provide government-issued photo IDs to everyone who needs but does not have one, a concern that, frankly, is laughable.

    Since when have Democrats ever been dissuaded from doing anything outside of the defense sector because it costs too much?

    You get the picture. The rhetoric is over the top, probably because voter ID does get at the problem of voter fraud which—for some Democrats—is not so much a theory as a turn out model, a key to winning close elections. [See a slide show of who's in and out for the GOP in 2012.]

    A comprehensive study by the Milwaukee Police Department found a strong possibility existed that there was "an illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome" through voter fraud of the 2004 elections in Wisconsin. The Colorado Secretary of State’s office determined that nearly 5,000 people who were not United States citizens—and therefore according to the law, ineligible to vote—voted in the 2010 U.S. Senate race. And there are plenty of other examples in the modern era including one other recent U.S. Senate race and a gubernatorial election whose outcomes were determined as a direct result of voter fraud.

    Voter fraud is not imaginary. It’s real and it threatens the franchise held by ever legitimate voter in the country and needs to be addressed if the electoral process is gong to continue to mean anything. Requiring voters to show a photo ID before they can vote just makes sense.


    Voter ID seems to make absolute sense. To suggest that you shouldn't at least try to make sure that the person voting is eligible to vote is actually what's odd about this entire debate. If you see voting as important then it should be protected - certainly more so than getting on a plane or even gun registration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 1:00 PM GMT
    The voter ID will with intention not allow people to vote. Some of us are fortunate enough to have elderly relatives in nursing homes. Many are sound of mind yet can only be moved by ambulance or have limited mobility in a wheel chair - less than an hour before they must be in bed again. These people don't have picture ID's or they have picture ID's that are expired. Some don't even have birth certificates, rather just baptism records. They just have their social security and medicare cards.

    It is even worse in states with a history of institutionalized racism (not just the south) where African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans were denied hospital access and were born at home and have no birth certificate, again a baptism record, if that. They draw their social security, they get their medicare, yet they can't vote? Are we saying they are not citizens?

    It is an attempt to keep the poor, the elderly and the disabled from voting.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 1:51 PM GMT
    webster11111 saidThe voter ID will with intention not allow people to vote. Some of us are fortunate enough to have elderly relatives in nursing homes. Many are sound of mind yet can only be moved by ambulance or have limited mobility in a wheel chair - less than an hour before they must be in bed again. These people don't have picture ID's or they have picture ID's that are expired. Some don't even have birth certificates, rather just baptism records. They just have their social security and medicare cards.

    It is even worse in states with a history of institutionalized racism (not just the south) where African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans were denied hospital access and were born at home and have no birth certificate, again a baptism record, if that. They draw their social security, they get their medicare, yet they can't vote? Are we saying they are not citizens?

    It is an attempt to keep the poor, the elderly and the disabled from voting.

    And students, as clearly demonstrated in Maine. I'm not aware that college students represent a significant illegal alien risk. Rather, Republicans fear these groups fall outside the political demographic that votes for them, hence they are creating roadblocks to their right to vote.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2011 3:18 PM GMT
    Funny how there are often two sides to an issue. The issue of students voting has come up in different states. One purpose of IDs is to ensure people vote where they are principally located. Local jurisdictions have had various ordinances voted heavily by a highly transient population that has no real stake in the jurisdiction. For example, is it fair that transients should influence the vote to provide services and raise property or sales taxes, when they will in many cases be permanently gone from the area within a year or two? Is it also fair that a highly transient population should influence the state and federal representation of a district?

    http://scottrhymer.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/new-hampshire-bill-to-make-students-vote-in-their-home-districts/
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Dec 28, 2011 3:39 PM GMT
    I can clearly see where each side is coming from on this one. It is an issues I go back and forth with. In one sense I think ID's would be a great way to ensure there is no fraud while also enforcing the immigration laws in each state. The right to vote should be for US citizens only. It would be ignorant to say that there aren't many illegals who vote on a regular basis in each election cycle.

    On the other hand I could see how it would limit the population that has the right to vote. In TN I have to show my voter ID card or my license. I am not sure how it is in other states but I don't feel like it is asking too much to show some form of ID. I haven't looked at my card sine the last election to see if there is a ID number there or not. Would it be too much to send out voting ID cards to all voters that are elligable? Even the elderly? That way when they send in their votes they can also put down their State ID number or voter registration ID number,
  • JP85257

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 28, 2011 7:38 PM GMT
    We have to show ID to get in to a bar but some of you dont think we should have to prove we are who we are to vote?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 28, 2011 8:38 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOne does not need a gun or to travel across state lines to vote. A spurious argument to back a racist policy that has already been proven completely unnecessary as voter fraud is not an issue in the US. Never has been.



    With homeland security issues, it seems reasonable as most stadiums , airports now require this.

    Of course if you start with the premise that having an ID is a racial issue then of course you would come to that conclusion.

    It is really getting harder to justifying NO ID requirement.

    You need an ID to do just about anything. I cannot see why it would limit anyone.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Dec 28, 2011 8:43 PM GMT
    webster11111 saidThe voter ID will with intention not allow people to vote. Some of us are fortunate enough to have elderly relatives in nursing homes. Many are sound of mind yet can only be moved by ambulance or have limited mobility in a wheel chair - less than an hour before they must be in bed again. These people don't have picture ID's or they have picture ID's that are expired. Some don't even have birth certificates, rather just baptism records. They just have their social security and medicare cards.

    It is even worse in states with a history of institutionalized racism (not just the south) where African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans were denied hospital access and were born at home and have no birth certificate, again a baptism record, if that. They draw their social security, they get their medicare, yet they can't vote? Are we saying they are not citizens?

    It is an attempt to keep the poor, the elderly and the disabled from voting.



    100% wrong

    Check with your nursing home about this fact. Its a joint commission regulation that all patients in chronic facilities have a picture id and a way to identify them.
    This was implemented to reduce medical errors.

    When you open the chart it is usually in the front.

    No one is saying those people are "not citizens" however its impossible to be in a long term faciitiy without an ID.