Voting ID, the problems it purports to solve, and the problems it might create

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?

As I said earlier:

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'd contend that voting isn't a basic right. It is, after all, not in the Bill of Rights--the founders debated if those first 10 amendments a necessity, or if they just made explicit things that the rest of the Constitution implied. Obviously, there are later amendments that extended voting rights, but they don't come up in the Bill of Rights, because unlike the freedoms of speech, assembly, due process and so forth, voting wasn't implied in the Articles, is was directly stated.

So, voting isn't a basic right, it's a foundational concept upon which our nation was built. As such, we really shouldn't put barriers around it--no matter how insignificant that barrier may seem to a limited imagination.

okay, before we go down this rabbit hole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...

Thank you Eldon_of_Azure, for Rock of Ages, and thank you Monkeyboy for all the monkeys.

momgamer wrote:

Thank you Eldon_of_Azure, for Rock of Ages, and thank you Monkeyboy for all the monkeys. :)

I think you hit up the wrong thread

Stengah wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Thank you Eldon_of_Azure, for Rock of Ages, and thank you Monkeyboy for all the monkeys. :)

I think you hit up the wrong thread ;)

Oh, Bother! What I get for trying to post while my daughter's daffy cat is wigging out in my office.

bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

2 & 6 are proved with identification when one registers to vote. Why must they be proved again when one is at the polls?

And as we discussed earlier on. The majority of us pay for these photo IDs. One degree removed or not, requiring a license or a passport is my paying to vote.

Question for the anti ID folks. Would you have this issue if your driving license or state ID were free for all?

This is not a crazy thought either. Social security cards and replacements are free.

Rosenhane, even the Republicans who were fire-eating on the topic could not find enough evidence to pass *anything* to law enforcement, beyond a few hundred people with the names of felons who voted or attempted to vote. As I said, .0038% of the voters were convicted. The current system worked fine; it's more reliable than many other things we deal with in daily life (your *bank* probably has more computer outage time per than that, for example.)

Is this really enough of a crisis to claim that the system doesn't work, and instead of just fixing the actual problem (people with names matching felons voting) with changes to internal procedures at much lower cost and disruption. How is issuing ids to everyone going to work better than the system we have now? How many of those felons voted under false ids or names? (The answer right now seems to be none...)

The biggest worry is mail-in votes. ID does nothing to prevent mail-in vote fraud.

We live in a wonderful post war era without problems. TSA policy is informed by Die Hard With a Vengeance for Christ's sake. And when a genuine problem pops up so often, we address the made up ones so we can make sure that everyone knows Iowa is safe from tiger attacks.

KingGorilla wrote:

... that everyone knows Iowa is safe from tiger attacks.

You joke, but statistically? It's a jungle out here!

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.

I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?

KingGorilla wrote:

And as we discussed earlier on. The majority of us pay for these photo IDs. One degree removed or not, requiring a license or a passport is my paying to vote.

Question for the anti ID folks. Would you have this issue if your driving license or state ID were free for all?

This is not a crazy thought either. Social security cards and replacements are free.

Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.

bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.

Is it sufficiently available to those who might not have transportation or who might work at the hours the ID office is open?

bandit0013 wrote:

I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?

No, I don't. You must prove you're 18 to register to vote. If your college ID did not have your date of birth on it, you would require another form of identification that does.

bandit0013 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Not coming down on either side, but you're making a false assumption that all 4% of those people actually want to vote.

Whether they want to or not doesn't matter. They have the right to vote and no barriers should be put in their way to exercise that right.

I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?

Odd.

Think the bullets-and-ballots argument may be on repeat. It's not quite the stumper you seem to think it is. As before, I think Yonder's post in the Wisconsin State Senate recalls thread is pretty spot on about barriers, in the context of folks exercising their right to vote. Quoting it in its entirety (because it's awesome), and bolding what I feel is the most relevant paragraph.

Yonder[/url]]

MattDaddy wrote:

Then getting into a vehicle and showing up at the polling place is a barrier. As is waiting in line, and finding out where you need to go to vote. Being able to read may be a barrier. Getting a absentee ballot would also be a barrier.

Exactly! For each separate case you have to carefully decide whether that barrier is one that simply needs to be there, or whether it's reasonable to lessen it.

Of the ones you listed the first one is a no-go. If you have so few polling stations that a vehicle is required to get to them then that's a pretty large barrier, especially in one of the many states that have rotten transportation. The expense of having enough polling places that nearly all people have one within walking distance absolutely sounds like a reasonable one. Only as a last resort (for example in the most rural and depopulated areas) should people need to resort to mailing in their ballot or renting a taxi.

As far as waiting in line goes, that's a barrier too, so some steps need to be taken to mitigate that. Some states make election day a holiday, so that everyone has more time available to vote. Other states mandate paid time off for part of the day, in California two hours is mandated. Working at it from the other direction there need to be enough polling places that are staffed well enough to let everyone vote in a reasonable amount of time. What's reasonable? I have no idea, I think that if people had to wait four hours in line to vote pretty much everyone could agree that that wasn't right. On the other hand I don't think that anyone would want to pay $10 billion to lower the average wait time from three minutes to two minutes.

As far as finding out where you need to go, that's also a barrier, and you probably notice every year that the government goes through a lot of effort every year keeping that a tiny barrier. They don't just throw it up on a website somewhere, that's not a big barrier for me, but I guarantee you that my grandparents may miss that election. You can find it online, and there are generally signs outside the polling places for at least several days leading up to the election, they mail you the address of your polling place, they generally put up fliers in libraries, supermarkets, and other public places, especially government-run public places. My local Subway and Baskin Robbins each have a bulletin board inside with various community events that always includes local polling places near election days. I've also lived in places with hotlines that you could call to get the address of your polling place, the number of the hotline was on many of the aforementioned fliers, as well as being advertised on the radio.

As far as being able to read, that does seem like a fairly reasonable barrier. It's a small barrier because pretty much everyone can read, in large part due to the fact that this country has free public education up through 12th grade. If that wasn't true, or if illiteracy was somehow a large problem regardless of that fact, then that would start to become an unreasonable barrier, especially with the ease that that could be fixed using modern technology. ("Punch the first circle to vote for XXX, punch the second circle to vote for YYY" through a pair of earphones). What if someone can read, but they can't see? That's exactly why they make Braille ballots.

It is never ok to point to a barrier and just through your hands up in the air and say that's the way it has to be. You have to continuously minimize these barriers as much as is reasonable (reasonable obviously being up for debate). Also pointing at existing barriers and saying "oh well, there are already some barriers, no reason not to put in new barriers" is absolutely terrible rationale.

Yonder wrote:

I used to think that same day registration, and the fact that if you were registered you could vote without any ID was odd, but the fact that after the election the government can easily make sure that your identity wasn't used to vote twice seems to be an acceptable defense for most frauds, and the other stuff like felons and dead people voting can and is caught just by keeping the registered voter list updated.

MattDaddy wrote:

After the election it's too late. The illegal vote has been counted. You can't just go into the bin and remove Joe Smith's ballot.

That seems like exactly the sort of electoral process change that the money should be better spent on. If it's even true that Wisconsin has no measures in place to discount discovered vote fraud, then what the heck is the point of the ID cards. "Look, there are two John Does that live in this district, but they voted 17 times, 16 of them from the guy that lives on 12th Main Street. Shame we can't do anything about that." Just becomes "Look, there are two John Does that live in this district, but they voted 17 times, 16 of them from the guy that lives on 12th Main Street with ID card number 173423876. Shame we can't do anything about that."

Demyx wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.

Is it sufficiently available to those who might not have transportation or who might work at the hours the ID office is open?

Are you suggesting a reality where someone can't travel to the BMV in the 700 days between elections but can somehow get to the poll on the 5th?

bandit0013 wrote:

Are you suggesting a reality where someone can't travel to the BMV in the 700 days between elections but can somehow get to the poll on the 5th?

For starters, yes, actually, that's why they have such a thing as absentee ballots isn't it?

Secondly, part of the problem with the laws being proposed is that depending on when they would go into effect they might leave people with far less than 700 days to get these IDs.

DMV locations are typically convenient to people with cars, strangely enough. Not so convenient to other people.

And yeah. 750,000 people who do not have photo ID in Pennsylvania today will need them if they wish to vote in November. That's ~120 days left in which to make sure that everybody who wishes to vote has all of their documents together and gets to the DMV for their photo ID.

(Not to mention that it's still not clear what will happen with legal challenges, which just leads to more confusion.)

(P.S. Good luck if you have misplaced your social security card. That's going to be a different set of documentation taken to a different location, and a significant wait for the card by mail before you can take it to the DMV to get your ID.)

Per this, regarding how it's not that hard to get ID...

But a legal challenge presses on. 93-year old Germantown resident Viviette Applewhite, who has been unable to obtain a Pennsylvania birth certificate, is the lead plaintiff in the ACLU and NAACP lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include “three elderly women who say they cannot obtain necessary ID because they were born in the Jim Crow South, where states have no records of their births.”

Oh, the irony.

bandit0013 wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

And as we discussed earlier on. The majority of us pay for these photo IDs. One degree removed or not, requiring a license or a passport is my paying to vote.

Question for the anti ID folks. Would you have this issue if your driving license or state ID were free for all?

This is not a crazy thought either. Social security cards and replacements are free.

Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.

Members of occupy attempted that in Kansas.

http://occupy316.org/2012/01/12/kanv...

Similar problems were presented when the Justice Department halted implementation of Texas' ID law.

The law is all well and good, as is the system of free IDs. Seems Wichita cannot cope with 40-50 people at once.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.

I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?

I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.

Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.

I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?

I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.

Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...

26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.

I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?

I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.

Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...

26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.

No, I don't think it did. It set the maximum age for denying the right to vote on account of age. There's a difference between "you must be 18 to vote" and "if you are 18, the fact that your are 18 means you must be allowed to vote."

It's the STATE constitutions that say 17 year olds and foreigners can't vote.

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:

1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.

I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.

Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.

I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?

I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.

Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...

26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.

No, I don't think it did. It set the maximum age for denying the right to vote on account of age. There's a difference between "you must be 18 to vote" and "if you are 18, the fact that your are 18 means you must be allowed to vote."

Ok, I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that to prove that I'm exercising my constitutional right to vote showing that I am indeed 18 years old is part of the "you have to constitutionally let me vote" card.

bandit0013 wrote:

Ok, I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that to prove that I'm exercising my constitutional right to vote showing that I am indeed 18 years old is part of the "you have to constitutionally let me vote" card.

Since when do you have to show ID to exercise any of the other constitutional rights?

SixteenBlue wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Ok, I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that to prove that I'm exercising my constitutional right to vote showing that I am indeed 18 years old is part of the "you have to constitutionally let me vote" card.

Since when do you have to show ID to exercise any of the other constitutional rights?

More, we check ballots. If you fill out a ballot and are under aged, the count will show you as a fraud.

You might as well ask what stops a person from sending a letter bomb with their actual return address. It is a boneheaded thing to do. Are we genuinely concerned of people committing and admitting to a crime at the same time?

Bruce Schneier posited something interesting the other day: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...

We're at a unique time in the history of surveillance: the cameras are everywhere, and we can still see them. Fifteen years ago, they weren't everywhere. Fifteen years from now, they'll be so small we won't be able to see them. Similarly, all the debates we've had about national ID cards will become moot as soon as these surveillance technologies are able to recognize us without us even knowing it.

Voter ID laws will be Overcome By Events as they say in gov't land.

Mixolyde wrote:

Voter ID laws will be Overcome By Events as they say in gov't land.

In the meantime, another judge has voided 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 (our ALEC-written Voter ID law).

A second judge on Tuesday declared Wisconsin’s voter identification law unconstitutional, further guaranteeing that the ID requirement won’t be in place for this fall’s
elections.

Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan ruled that the state’s requirement that all voters show photo ID at the polls creates a “substantial impairment of the right to vote” guaranteed by the state Constitution.
In March, Flanagan issued an injunction temporarily blocking the law, finding that the groups challenging the ID requirement — the Milwaukee branch of the NAACP and the immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera — were likely to succeed in their arguments. He made that injunction permanent in Tuesday’s 20-page decision.

Another Dane County judge, Richard Niess, permanently blocked the voter ID law in March in a separate case brought by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin. Voter ID proponents would need to get both orders lifted to get the law reinstated.

A spokeswoman for Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Van Hollen likely will also appeal the latest ruling.

Given our the behavior of our current state Supreme Court, I'm unsurprised by the appeal.

I thought the Justice Dept also won a federal injunction against Wisconsin.

So the University of Delaware just published the results of a national survey that revealed that support for voter ID laws are highest among Americans "who harbor negative sentiments towards African Americans."