The GOP War On Voting

KrazyTacoFO wrote:

If I had to choose between 5 people committing voter fraud (or whatever miniscule number it is) and charging a University millions and millions over the next decade or just realizing there is no problem, I would not waste tax payer money.

I think you missed the part where bandit and I have said "you know, there might be other purposes for this legislation beyond this smokescreen of voter fraud." Republican legislators, unlike Democratic ones many times, are much better at SELLING their legislation to the general public. But why use the simplified argument to the general public as a proxy for the whole reasoning for the legislation? Isn't that unfair to your opponents? How is the principle of Audi Alteram Partem being evinced in this action?

To put it another way, when you're talking to people that are less than fully informed about the issues you're legislating over, you don't generally want to use the incredibly nuanced and elevated language that would be understandable to only those who are fully informed. You want to use an argument that your audience is likely to understand.

Lots of actions in life have multiple reasons for, against, and ambivalent toward doing. Will a voter ID requirement be a barrier to voting? Sure. Is it an unreasonable one? Depends on who you ask. What is its purpose? It can be anything from reducing voter fraud to keeping the poor and young at home on voting day to encouraging poor and young peoples' increased access to state and local services. But please stop assuming that there is only one purpose for this legislation. I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees that voter fraud is not a huge issue when you look at the numbers. But not all voters look at the numbers, so the argument still holds sway with the less than fully informed voters.

But does that make it bad legislation? Maybe not. After all, we haven't considered the arguments that would be made to an intelligent, mostly informed person. Not yet in this thread or in the public debate. We are arguing against specters of an argument.

If you are in the business of selling cars, you pick and choose certain parts of a car to tote. "This car gets AMAZING gas millage! This car has a engine you wouldn't believe!" Etc. But whatever line you choose to sell isn't necessarily the reason people should buy your car, you're just aiming for the line that will sell the most cars. Selling legislation is kinda like selling cars. You oversell certain parts and ignore other valid reasons just the same.

I personally believe the only reason is because of corrupt GOPers attempting to disenfranchise the poor (heavily skewed democrat). I was giving your viewpoint the benefit of the doubt that there is a possibility of it relating to trying to curb voter fraud. Therefore I was showing that even if (and that's a big if) it's being implemented to do so, it is not a good policy due to the costs to taxpayers in an already broke state economy.

You are not giving my viewpoint the benefit of the doubt. You are giving someone else's view point the benefit of the doubt, but it isn't mine. I never pretended that voter fraud is a problem. I have been devoting my attention exclusively toward other purposes that are NOT voter fraud.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

You are not giving my viewpoint the benefit of the doubt. You are giving someone else's view point the benefit of the doubt, but it isn't mine. I never pretended that voter fraud is a problem. I have been devoting my attention exclusively toward other purposes that are NOT voter fraud.

In that case please cite what you are referring to? I haven't read anywhere that the purposes of making voters get IDs is also to implement local and state services for the poor (or whatever reason). If you believe this could you please cite sources with these legislators stating this? If not, it is just speculation and carries no weight and shouldn't be a base to levy taxes or increase the burden on an already broke budget.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

I think you missed the part where bandit and I have said "you know, there might be other purposes for this legislation beyond this smokescreen of voter fraud." Republican legislators, unlike Democratic ones many times, are much better at SELLING their legislation to the general public. But why use the simplified argument to the general public as a proxy for the whole reasoning for the legislation? Isn't that unfair to your opponents? How is the principle of Audi Alteram Partem being evinced in this action?

To put it another way, when you're talking to people that are less than fully informed about the issues you're legislating over, you don't generally want to use the incredibly nuanced and elevated language that would be understandable to only those who are fully informed. You want to use an argument that your audience is likely to understand.

So your position is that Republican voters aren't likely to understand the "real" agenda the GOP has with these laws, which is to standardize identification and provide poor and young people increased access to state and local services, and therefore must be lied to, to ensure their support? Are you sure you're not Poe Law?

You're welcome to make the argument that ID reform has the potential to do the positive things you mention (I think there's a case to be made there, though it may be the case that ID reform deserves a spinoff thread), but the legislation ALEC is promoting (and states like Wisconsin are adopting on their behalf) is clearly about voting. Here's one of their pieces of model legislation (warning, PDF link).

A voting ID requirement probably doesn't violate the equal protection clause, it has no targeted impac

That is all-caps BULLsh*t. The STATED reason to do this is to prevent fraud, but there isn't any. Well, okay, it exists, but it's so vanishingly small that it's barely even measurable. At the rates stated upthread, if the entire country were to vote, all 250 MILLION of us, there would be just 1,000 fraudulent votes.

Quit trying to pretend this issue is anything other than what it is, an attempt to keep people Republicans don't like away from the polls.

In that case please cite what you are referring to?

I'm not referring to any political argument outside of this thread. Bandit and I are providing alternative reasons that a voter ID requirement to vote is not wholly unreasonable or altogether onerous. All arguments about what the legislators intend is necessarily speculation, and I'm rather uninterested in pursuing the argument.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

So your position is that Republican voters aren't likely to understand the "real" agenda the GOP has with these laws, which is to standardize identification and provide poor and young people increased access to state and local services, and therefore must be lied to, to ensure their support?

You're unnecessarily twisting my words to mean something I did not intend. The principle of fairness requires that you recreate my argument in a way that I can agree with before arguing against it.

The Republican legislators very likely have an array of reasons for supporting voter ID laws, including but not limited to addressing their constituency's concerns regarding voting fraud with a measure that will not reduce the amount of voting fraud in any way, but will be supported by a large share of the state's voters. Some legislators that are more politically shrewd are likely seeing this as an opportunity to increase the portion of republican voters that turnout to an election. But to assert that it is the whole of the republican political establishment with this view seems a bit like a cracked up conspiracy theory--particularly since you don't have any evidence of what another person is thinking.

Malor wrote:

That is all-caps BULLsh*t.

6-3 vote says the Supreme Court disagrees with you. You can feel free to disagree with Justice Stevens' 2008 ruling, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is convincing legally speaking. At best, the current makeup of the Supreme Court would disagree with you 5-4.

Quit trying to pretend this issue is anything other than what it is, an attempt to keep people Republicans don't like away from the polls.

Objection! Speculation!

Malor wrote:
A voting ID requirement probably doesn't violate the equal protection clause, it has no targeted impac

That is all-caps BULLsh*t. The STATED reason to do this is to prevent fraud, but there isn't any. Well, okay, it exists, but it's so vanishingly small that it's barely even measurable. At the rates stated upthread, if the entire country were to vote, all 250 MILLION of us, there would be just 1,000 fraudulent votes.

Quit trying to pretend this issue is anything other than what it is, an attempt to keep people Republicans don't like away from the polls.

Gosh Malor, it's a good thing democrat supporting groups wouldn't engage in any behavior near polling stations that might intimidate voters. Thank god it's only republicans who try to keep "people they don't like away from the polls". You know what's awesome about the gentleman with the stick outside the polling place? He's this guy. The guy that Obama's DOJ just suddenly dropped charges against.

I'm sure that the Democratic party, ACLU, and the other groups that went before the supreme court and couldn't provide any evidence of disenfranchisement would love to see your proof that this is occurring though.

And yes, I realize this post is inflammatory to you, but I'm getting pretty sick of your accusation that mainstream republicans are trying to prevent people they don't like from reaching the polls when every court up to the SCOTUS disagrees with your viewpoint. You can put that broad brush down now. I mean, if you want to play the game where I can go take any quote from any democrat politician and use it to put views on yourself, I suppose we could go there, but I would find that pretty ignorant, so I won't.

NevermoreRaven wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

So your position is that Republican voters aren't likely to understand the "real" agenda the GOP has with these laws, which is to standardize identification and provide poor and young people increased access to state and local services, and therefore must be lied to, to ensure their support? Are you sure you're not Poe Law?

You're unnecessarily twisting my words to mean something I did not intend. The principle of fairness requires that you recreate my argument in a way that I can agree with before arguing against it.

My restatement of your argument wasn't intended to twist your words at all. You're the one speculating about possible other motives for passing these laws and referring to the Republican base as "less than fully informed about the issues". I'm happy to correct my paraphrase if you want to clarify what you meant about tailoring their arguments to a less-informed base, and what you think these hidden motives actually are. I also re-added the direct question you edited out.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

The Republican legislators very likely have an array of reasons for supporting voter ID laws, including but not limited to addressing their constituency's concerns regarding voting fraud with a measure that will not reduce the amount of voting fraud in any way, but will be supported by a large share of the state's voters. Some legislators that are more politically shrewd are likely seeing this as an opportunity to increase the portion of republican voters that turnout to an election. But to assert that it is the whole of the republican political establishment with this view seems a bit like a cracked up conspiracy theory--particularly since you don't have any evidence of what another person is thinking.

More hand-waving about motives. The only statements we have from legislators in favor of these laws is that they are intended to combat vote fraud (setting aside Mr. Massey's statement about suppressing Democratic voters). One of us is taking them at their word, and the other is imagining that these legislators have secret motives that haven't been publicly shared for reasons which are yet to be articulated clearly. As a reminder, the vote fraud these laws are ostensibly intended to fight doesn't exist, statistically speaking.

If there are other arguments to be made, you should make them. As noted above, I think there's a very reasonable argument to be had in favor of ID reform, which could have the positive effects you've suggested. There's even likely a reasonable argument in favor of incorporating voter ID changes as a part of that effort. That's not what these laws are about, though.

[Edit to clarify: I'm willing to set aside intent, for the purposes of our discussion. The absolute best case for bandit0013 and NevermoreRaven seems to be "this legislation fails to solve a nonexistent problem, and costs money to implement that could be better-used elsewhere". In Wisconsin at least, this is being done at the same time the GOP is using claims of statewide penury to advance a radical legislative agenda.]

Dimmerswitch wrote:

My restatement of your argument wasn't intended to twist your words at all. You're the one speculating about possible other motives for passing these laws and referring to the Republican base as "less than fully informed about the issues". I'm happy to correct my paraphrase if you want to clarify what you meant about tailoring their arguments to a less-informed base, and what you think these hidden motives actually are.

My main statement concerning the intent of legislators is that people are complex creatures and trying to simplify something into a "only this reason" formulation is probably not keeping with reality. Especially when "this reason" is to disenfranchise voters. By arguing this as Malor has just a few posts above, he says that he knows the republicans' intent (but has no evidence for it). It is much more hand-waiving than anything you think I am doing, which is stating that reality is nuanced and people's intents are frequently multi-layered and ambivalent.

Look: whenever anyone sells anything they are incredibly likely to engage in hyperbole. Malor uses hyperbole many times in this thread to sell his fear-mongering about the Republican Party. Republicans use hyperbole themselves to sell the extent to which voter fraud is a concern worth addressing. Everyone does it. It is right? Of course not. But it IS human.

My main statement concerning the rhetorical strategy of the law's proponents reflects the basics of rhetoric itself. You don't want to have complex messages that the average listener won't be trained to understand. The average listener is NOT a college-educated person but someone with a high school education. Statistical analyses might be fine in a college audience, but so many people are number-phobic that it doesn't make much sense to use those numbers in state-wide campaign for a bill, which is much of why republicans can sloppily assert that voter fraud is both real and an issue worth addressing while still convincing audiences: people without statistical training have little way of investigating the scope of the problem and media outlets aren't inclined to provide that perspective.

The amount of time that voters spend on learning about the events going on state-wide or nationally is not incredibly high. While we might be spending a large amount of time talking about this issue, most other people couldn't give a sh*t and are busy anyway in the factory or looking for a job or working nights at walmart or something. They are getting on with their lives and doing what they need to so that they can pay their rent. It doesn't mean they are dumb, just that they aren't paying attention. Delivering a message to these aloof people is much more about repetition of a few code words than it is delivering an actual argument. This isn't the republican base that I'm talking about either. This is about half of the voting population (given the issue*).

*Of course, different people are informed and kept current on different issues, as their values and interests dictate. I don't presume that all people are equally underinformed about topics, just that we are all at best partially informed about some and debate on those issues often amounts to who can yell their key phrases the loudest.

NevermoreRaven wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

My restatement of your argument wasn't intended to twist your words at all. You're the one speculating about possible other motives for passing these laws and referring to the Republican base as "less than fully informed about the issues". I'm happy to correct my paraphrase if you want to clarify what you meant about tailoring their arguments to a less-informed base, and what you think these hidden motives actually are.

My main statement concerning the intent of legislators is that people are complex creatures and trying to simplify something into a "only this reason" formulation is probably not keeping with reality. Especially when "this reason" is to disenfranchise voters. By arguing this as Malor has just a few posts above, he says that he knows the republicans' intent (but has no evidence for it). It is much more hand-waiving than anything you think I am doing, which is stating that reality is nuanced and people's intents are frequently multi-layered and ambivalent.

Except that Malor has the unguarded-moment quote from Mr. Masset in support of his position, while you have a boatload of speculation about how it's possible that legislators have other motivations which are being kept secret for the purposes of marketing this legislation to the voting public.

I do think it begs the question of motive when the only consistent reason given for these ALEC-written voter ID laws is demonstrably false, but even if we entirely shelve that issue for the purposes of our discussion in-thread, it leaves supporters in a position where these laws do nothing to address a nonexistent problem, using government money which could be better spent elsewhere (including the farcical plan of providing polling stations with lightning rods).

(including the farcical plan of providing polling stations with lightning rods).

Hey, it keeps the tigers away.

Meanwhile...

Wisconsin DOT internal memo wrote:

While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it.

That would seem to make the argument that there are benevolent motives in play for this legislation a bit harder to make persuasively.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Meanwhile...

Wisconsin DOT internal memo wrote:

While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it.

That would seem to make the argument that there are benevolent motives in play for this legislation a bit harder to make persuasively.

Maybe the paid IDs will give the poor unlimited bus fair and free meals at McDonalds; maybe that's what the Tea Party wants?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Except that Malor has the unguarded-moment quote from Mr. Masset in support of his position, while you have a boatload of speculation about how it's possible that legislators have other motivations which are being kept secret for the purposes of marketing this legislation to the voting public.

You are saying that I am arguing that people are wholly cognizant of all the reasons they do something. I am not making that claim. People are not the wholly rational beings all the time. Sometimes they have reasons that they are not fully aware of. I ate cereal today for the stated reason that it was in my house and I was hungry, but there are other reasons that I ate that cereal that I didn't say. It was easy. It is traditional for me to eat that cereal. I have a habit of eating cereal in the morning. But why would I bother listing all of those reasons if I didn't think of them when I made my initial statement?

But anyway, this argument has gone into a direction that I didn't really care to go into. I don't and never really give a sh*t about the legislators' intent. You keep trying to bring it back to that, because it is an easier argument to poke holes into. My argument has consistently been geared towards the formulation: BUT SUPPOSE THAT THIS CERTAIN MOTIVATION were why we should have a system that encourages state-issued IDs. Suppose that we wanted to encourage getting more poor and young people access to state services that require a state-ID. Wouldn't it make sense to try to connect voting with state-IDs for the purpose of lowing the hurdle to get access to these services? You might say "BUT IT IS AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN!!!" Sure, but it is one that already exists for many people who want access to certain schools. If we make it so more things that people value require a state-ID, wouldn't that make the worth of taking a day off to get that ID that much more worthwhile?

I am not concerned with legislator intent. So shut the f*ck up about it. I'm not concerned about voter fraud, so stop thinking that I'm supporting the legislation on that basis. People could support the invasion of Iraq for other reasons than WMDs (humanitarian grounds, anyone?). So stop thinking that I have to agree with every statement some jackass legislator made.

I do think it begs the question of motive when the only consistent reason given for these ALEC-written voter ID laws is demonstrably false,

Voter fraud does happen, so it isn't demonstrably false. Lots of evidence saying that you're being hyperbolic now (that is presented in this thread!). It might not happen very OFTEN, but it still happens. The opening post makes that clear. It is NOT a non-existent problem, just a very small one in the context of the number of total voters. Do you not think that a reasonable person could have different values as you and value the integrity of their voting system over the burden that obtaining a state-issued ID would bring people?

NevermoreRaven wrote:

So shut the f*ck up about it.

Well then. I think this conversation is over. If you aren't a troll, you're at least being rude and not worth my time. Ignored.

Voter fraud does happen, so it isn't demonstrably false.

Yes it is. If the entire United States went to the polls, two hundred and fifty million people, the expected fraud is about 1,000 votes. Out of two hundred and fifty million people.

You just keep ignoring that, over and over and over. One thousand votes in the entire country.... when that ONE DISTRICT lost over 700 because of the voter ID requirements.

The only fraud happening here is the argumentation that this move has anything to do with voter fraud.

NevermoreRaven wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

Except that Malor has the unguarded-moment quote from Mr. Masset in support of his position, while you have a boatload of speculation about how it's possible that legislators have other motivations which are being kept secret for the purposes of marketing this legislation to the voting public.

You are saying that I am arguing that people are wholly cognizant of all the reasons they do something. I am not making that claim. People are not the wholly rational beings all the time. Sometimes they have reasons that they are not fully aware of. I ate cereal today for the stated reason that it was in my house and I was hungry, but there are other reasons that I ate that cereal that I didn't say. It was easy. It is traditional for me to eat that cereal. I have a habit of eating cereal in the morning. But why would I bother listing all of those reasons if I didn't think of them when I made my initial statement?

So now we're speculating about motives that legislators themselves may not be aware of? I thought we were dropping that angle.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

But anyway, this argument has gone into a direction that I didn't really care to go into. I don't and never really give a sh*t about the legislators' intent. You keep trying to bring it back to that, because it is an easier argument to poke holes into. My argument has consistently been geared towards the formulation: BUT SUPPOSE THAT THIS CERTAIN MOTIVATION were why we should have a system that encourages state-issued IDs. Suppose that we wanted to encourage getting more poor and young people access to state services that require a state-ID. Wouldn't it make sense to try to connect voting with state-IDs for the purpose of lowing the hurdle to get access to these services? You might say "BUT IT IS AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN!!!" Sure, but it is one that already exists for many people who want access to certain schools. If we make it so more things that people value require a state-ID, wouldn't that make the worth of taking a day off to get that ID that much more worthwhile?

Okay, back to dropping the motivations angle again. The problem with the hypothetical benefits scenarios you're spinning up for a state ID is: that's not what these laws provide for. They're strictly about voting. As with the prisoner disenfranchisement and gun control derails that have come up previously, the discussion of generalized ID reform and prospective benefits/downsides thereof really belongs in a separate thread.

NevermoreRaven wrote:

I am not concerned with legislator intent. So shut the f*ck up about it. I'm not concerned about voter fraud, so stop thinking that I'm supporting the legislation on that basis. People could support the invasion of Iraq for other reasons than WMDs (humanitarian grounds, anyone?). So stop thinking that I have to agree with every statement some jackass legislator made.

Hard to believe that just last page you were lecturing about tone:

NevermoreRaven wrote:

There is a phrase in latin that I take very seriously whenever I write here. "Audi alteram partem" meaning, "Listen to another side."

And now allegations that a DMV employee was terminated for emailing other DMV workers to make them aware of the Free ID policy, a provision stipulated by the new Voter ID bill in Wisconsin.

If that story is true (the firing happened this morning, so it's still developing - I'll post an update when/if local news do a more detailed story), I expect the resulting lawsuit will add another stack of cash to the costs this Voter ID bill has brought upon my state.

[Edit: because using the word "cost" twice in a sentence is awkward]

Dimmer, considering my daily assaults on grammar, I don't think anyone would even have noticed.

Giving Nevermore a week long time out from the forums. He can email me if he'd like to be re-instated at that time.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

And now allegations that a DMV employee was terminated for emailing other DMV workers to make them aware of the Free ID policy, a provision stipulated by the new Voter ID bill in Wisconsin.

If that story is true (the firing happened this morning, so it's still developing - I'll post an update when/if local news do a more detailed story), I expect the resulting lawsuit will add another stack of cash to the costs this Voter ID bill has brought upon my state.

[Edit: because using the word "cost" twice in a sentence is awkward]

Here's the link to the DOT memo. Seems to me that if you are obtaining the photo identification for other purposes than voting, such as cashing checks, etc it is subject to the normal fee. However if you certify (by checking the box) that your ID is only for voting purposes it is then free.

Kreiser said the law states, "we have to charge people the regular $28 rate (for photo identification) unless customers come in and request it, and certify that they need it for the purpose of voting."
Kreiser said customers have been purchasing photo identification long before the new law went into effect. He said those looking for the cards for any other reason besides voting need to pay the fee. He also said as long as a customer actively seeks a free photo ID, workers at the DMV will help them.

Notice in the email he specifically asks the supervisors to ensure that printed forms are available until the professionally printed ones come in. It doesn't seem to me that he's actively trying to keep voters from getting the IDs, he's trying to prevent a run on free IDs by people who intend to use them for the other purposes that the state charges for. Additionally, notice that he forbids the staff from "Please do not make additional efforts to verify U.S. citizenship, voting eligibility, or status as a felon." Seems to me he's being careful to ensure that the BMV staff don't turn into polling guards and disenfranchise someone.

I would guess, given the text of Mr. Larsen's email:

“Do you know someone who votes that does not have a State ID that meets requirements to vote? Tell them they can go to the DMV/DOT and get a free ID card. However they must ask for the free ID. a memo was sent out by the 3rd in command of the DMV/DOT. The memo specifically told the employees at the DMV/DOT not to inform individuals that the ID’s are free. So if the individuals seeking to get the free ID does not ask for a free ID, they will have to pay for it!!

“Just wanted everyone to be informed!! REMEMBER TO TELL ANYONE YOU KNOW!! ANYONE!! EVEN IF THEY DON’T NEED THE FREE ID, THEY MAY KNOW SOMEONE THAT DOES!! SO TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!”

That's uh, pretty much in the face of the policy that his superiors sent. I'd say that's pretty easily construed as insubordination. Other reports I've seen since Googling him say the department said this isn't the first time he's sent inappropriate emails to the department. Boss says A, you send mass email encouraging not A... yeah, you're probably gonna get canned for that in most companies.

And, once again, you completely avoid engaging with the reality that they are solving nothing by doing all this.

bandit0013 wrote:

That's uh, pretty much in the face of the policy that his superiors sent. I'd say that's pretty easily construed as insubordination. Other reports I've seen since Googling him say the department said this isn't the first time he's sent inappropriate emails to the department. Boss says A, you send mass email encouraging not A... yeah, you're probably gonna get canned for that in most companies.

So, which is worse? Insubordination? Or a government official directing functionaries to obey the letter but not the spirit of the law?

Hypatian wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

That's uh, pretty much in the face of the policy that his superiors sent. I'd say that's pretty easily construed as insubordination. Other reports I've seen since Googling him say the department said this isn't the first time he's sent inappropriate emails to the department. Boss says A, you send mass email encouraging not A... yeah, you're probably gonna get canned for that in most companies.

So, which is worse? Insubordination? Or a government official directing functionaries to obey the letter but not the spirit of the law?

Government officials are supposed to obey the letter of the law, it's up the courts to determine the spirit. Civics 101. Besides, he's a mail room employee, it's not his place to provide commentary to the entire office contradicting the management. If he has a problem with a policy, he should take it up the chain. Become a whistleblower if he must, but his actions were insubordinate and immature.

Nah, the guy was right. If the higher-ups want to subvert democracy and the Constitution, they should have the balls to come down and do it themselves.

Interesting. Over here the court decided that because an ID is required by the government for most of it's interactions that it would be unreasonable to charge for it. Seems over all a much better way about it then this half/half approach.

Lucan wrote:

Interesting. Over here the court decided that because an ID is required by the government for most of it's interactions that it would be unreasonable to charge for it. Seems over all a much better way about it then this half/half approach.

Agreed. Or if they really want it just for voting it shouldn't be the same as the other one

Right now, the facts are still in dispute. The DOT claims that Mr. Larsen had a history of work infractions, while he asserts he'd never been disciplined previously. That should be a relatively straightforward matter to resolve. If he hadn't been disciplined before, it's entirely possible that his firing was improper and he'll have grounds to sue. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article about Mr. Larsen's firing did include the following addendum:

Note: This story was updated after Murray said in a second interview that Larsen had violated work rules in the past.

Whether or not Mr. Larsen was improperly terminated, the DOT policy of not informing individuals of their right to a free voter ID is now drawing fire from legislators who helped pass the bill. Evan Wynn, a Republican from the 43rd Assembly District, wrote an open letter to Secretary Gottlieb yesterday (warning, PDF link).

Assemblyman Wynn wrote:

The memo detailing the implementation of free photo identification is concerning, to say the least. As long as the individual provides the proper documents to prove that they are who they claim to be, it should be the department's mission and goal to remove all barriers from obtaining that identification -- including the price tag.

Providing free identification to those who seek to vote is the very foundation of the premise of "Voter ID." Placing unnecessary barriers undermines our elections and undermines the intent of the law.

[Edit to add: as I've said previously, there's a good argument to be made in favor of ID reform generally (and maybe we should create a thread for that). However, that's not what these laws are about. They're specifically targeting the voting process, and the problem they are purportedly designed to address simply doesn't exist, statistically speaking. While I feel that voter suppression is the goal (and a likely outcome) of these laws, even if we set that issue aside entirely, that leaves these laws as failing to solve a nonexistent issue, spending government money that could be put to more productive use.]

I kind of read the memo as "it's the same ID as the one we charge for, we don't want people who should be paying for it abusing the system, so only give it if someone certifies themselves properly".

I was unaware until I read that memo that it's the same ID as the paid one, that's kind of stupid. If they want a "vote only" one that is free and not valid for other things as per the memo, shouldn't they slap a special color background on it or something and then just not allow banks, check cashers, etc to use it?

However as someone who supports national ID I think all IDs should be compulsory and free anyways.