The GOP War On Voting

CheezePavilion wrote:

Voter fraud is comparable to gun violence as a problem in our society?

The violent crime rates of concealed carry permit holders are about the same as the rates of perceived voter fraud. So... yes?

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Voter fraud is comparable to gun violence as a problem in our society?

The violent crime rates of concealed carry permit holders are about the same as the rates of perceived voter fraud. So... yes?

I'm a huge fan of the right to bear arms and own several including but not limited to items that require federal tax stamps. That said, the above argument is a pretty incompetent one for justifying voter intimidation.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Voter fraud is comparable to gun violence as a problem in our society?

The violent crime rates of concealed carry permit holders are about the same as the rates of perceived voter fraud. So... yes?

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

Paleocon wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Voter fraud is comparable to gun violence as a problem in our society?

The violent crime rates of concealed carry permit holders are about the same as the rates of perceived voter fraud. So... yes?

I'm a huge fan of the right to bear arms and own several including but not limited to items that require federal tax stamps. That said, the above argument is a pretty incompetent one for justifying voter intimidation.

It was more of a response to the assertion that since voting is a fundamental right that an ID shouldn't be required. I was just showing that just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean that identity/registration/etc isn't invalid or abusive.

I am not advocating that no id or registration be required for firearms.

The second assertion is that known voter fraud is a very low rate, well so is violent crime by concealed carry permit holders. It's irrelevant. In both cases it is in our best interest to ensure that we know who is voting and who has firearms.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

A fraudulent vote MURDERS FREEDOM.

Podunk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

A fraudulent vote MURDERS FREEDOM.

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

Voter fraud is comparable to gun violence as a problem in our society?

The violent crime rates of concealed carry permit holders are about the same as the rates of perceived voter fraud. So... yes?

I'm a huge fan of the right to bear arms and own several including but not limited to items that require federal tax stamps. That said, the above argument is a pretty incompetent one for justifying voter intimidation.

It was more of a response to the assertion that since voting is a fundamental right that an ID shouldn't be required. I was just showing that just because something is a constitutional right doesn't mean that identity/registration/etc isn't invalid or abusive.

I am not advocating that no id or registration be required for firearms.

The second assertion is that known voter fraud is a very low rate, well so is violent crime by concealed carry permit holders. It's irrelevant. In both cases it is in our best interest to ensure that we know who is voting and who has firearms.

The problem is that the implementation of the identification requirement has been shown to be both unnecessary and discriminatory. One could argue that it is in our best interest to make sure that voters are literate and able to speak English. Why not, then, bring back literacy tests since that worked so well?

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Podunk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

A fraudulent vote MURDERS FREEDOM.

:lol:

Gosh darn it, it just came to me to ask how many candidates that have fraudulent votes cast against them wind up like Gabby Giffords, and you had to go making the thread all fun and light-hearted 'n stuff!

Paleocon wrote:

The problem is that the implementation of the identification requirement has been shown to be both unnecessary and discriminatory. One could argue that it is in our best interest to make sure that voters are literate and able to speak English. Why not, then, bring back literacy tests since that worked so well?

Because you can have someone read the ballot to you on request.

I still reject that it's discriminatory because it's free. Let's make it compulsory, then it won't be an issue anymore.

If you can bus people around to register (get out the vote) and bus people around to get them to the polling station, why can't you bus them to the BMV to get their ID?

CheezePavilion wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Podunk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

A fraudulent vote MURDERS FREEDOM.

:lol:

Gosh darn it, it just came to me to ask how many candidates that have fraudulent votes cast against them wind up like Gabby Giffords, and you had to go making the thread all fun and light-hearted 'n stuff!

Capital punishment has gone on the ballot. So technically a vote can murder someone.

Either way, let's not get derailed. My point was that there are many cases when you need to submit proof of identity to exercise a fundamental right. So that argument against voter id is total bunk.

Explain to me why having to prove that you are a valid resident and US citizen is inherently bad.
Explain to me why getting a free state issued ID is discriminatory, and who exactly is being discriminated against?

-If it's free, it's not economics, so you can't claim the poor
-There's nothing race or gender based about it

If it does lower turnout, it's lowering turnout for people that aren't informed, or don't care. If you have a job, you have to provide proof of identification, so "working poor who don't have enough time" is bunk. If you don't have a job, you certainly have time to get to the BMV. If you're disabled, elderly, or infirm there are free services you use to get around town, those same services will get you to the BMV as well.

I have no issue with reach-out programs to voters so long as gifts aren't being exchanged and no fraudulent information is being put out.

bandit0013 wrote:

Either way, let's not get derailed. My point was that there are many cases when you need to submit proof of identity to exercise a fundamental right. So that argument against voter id is total bunk.

Explain to me why having to prove that you are a valid resident and US citizen is inherently bad.
Explain to me why getting a free state issued ID is discriminatory, and who exactly is being discriminated against?

-If it's free, it's not economics, so you can't claim the poor
-There's nothing race or gender based about it

If it does lower turnout, it's lowering turnout for people that aren't informed, or don't care. If you have a job, you have to provide proof of identification, so "working poor who don't have enough time" is bunk. If you don't have a job, you certainly have time to get to the BMV. If you're disabled, elderly, or infirm there are free services you use to get around town, those same services will get you to the BMV as well.

I have no issue with reach-out programs to voters so long as gifts aren't being exchanged and no fraudulent information is being put out.

The problem is (as demonstrated in the video dimmerswitch posted) with implementation.

There is no political reason for someone a political party or partisan official to make it more difficult for you to obtain identification for the purpose of driving a car or getting a job, but there is LOADS of motivation for the same to prevent you from voting if you fit a particular demographic. Similarly, "neighborhood interviews" in which neighbors need to be consulted in order to allow you to move into a neighborhood aren't "inherently discriminatory", but sit through one (as my family did as the only Asian family to be required to sit for that "formality") and you recognize precisely what that sort of thing is meant to dissuade.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Podunk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

A fraudulent vote MURDERS FREEDOM.

:lol:

Gosh darn it, it just came to me to ask how many candidates that have fraudulent votes cast against them wind up like Gabby Giffords, and you had to go making the thread all fun and light-hearted 'n stuff!

Capital punishment has gone on the ballot. So technically a vote can murder someone.

You missed the distinction between murder and justifiable homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Podunk wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Without even getting any deeper into this, you just compared the effect of a fraudulent vote to that of a violent crime?

A fraudulent vote MURDERS FREEDOM.

:lol:

Gosh darn it, it just came to me to ask how many candidates that have fraudulent votes cast against them wind up like Gabby Giffords, and you had to go making the thread all fun and light-hearted 'n stuff!

Capital punishment has gone on the ballot. So technically a vote can murder someone.

You missed the distinction between murder and justifiable homicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifi...

Liberal rubbish.

Things you can't do without a photo id:

Cash a check
Open a bank account
Apply for credit
Gain Employment
Fly on a commercial airline
Drive
Register your children for school
Purchase alcohol or tobacco
Purchase a firearm
Buy Sudafed at the local drug store
Go to a nightclub
Enter a casino
Buy a lottery ticket
Buy a home

Also, I know I've seen a lot of folks throw up health care reform polls and higher taxes on the rich polls in an attempt to strengthen their arguments. Well rasumussen showed that 75% of likely voters think ID should be required.

Paleocon wrote:

The problem is (as demonstrated in the video dimmerswitch posted) with implementation.

There is no political reason for someone a political party or partisan official to make it more difficult for you to obtain identification for the purpose of driving a car or getting a job, but there is LOADS of motivation for the same to prevent you from voting if you fit a particular demographic. Similarly, "neighborhood interviews" in which neighbors need to be consulted in order to allow you to move into a neighborhood aren't "inherently discriminatory", but sit through one (as my family did as the only Asian family to be required to sit for that "formality") and you recognize precisely what that sort of thing is meant to dissuade.

So you're comparing taking a copy of your birth certificate up to the BMV for your photo id to a neighborhood interview? Do the people at the BMV look funny at the Asian guy? Do they not service him?

bandit0013 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem is (as demonstrated in the video dimmerswitch posted) with implementation.

There is no political reason for someone a political party or partisan official to make it more difficult for you to obtain identification for the purpose of driving a car or getting a job, but there is LOADS of motivation for the same to prevent you from voting if you fit a particular demographic. Similarly, "neighborhood interviews" in which neighbors need to be consulted in order to allow you to move into a neighborhood aren't "inherently discriminatory", but sit through one (as my family did as the only Asian family to be required to sit for that "formality") and you recognize precisely what that sort of thing is meant to dissuade.

So you're comparing taking a copy of your birth certificate up to the BMV for your photo id to a neighborhood interview? Do the people at the BMV look funny at the Asian guy? Do they not service him?

As demonstrated in the video Dimmer posted, the process is actually pretty invasive. When was the last time you were asked to provide a bank balance with "activity" to buy cigarettes?

Paleocon wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem is (as demonstrated in the video dimmerswitch posted) with implementation.

There is no political reason for someone a political party or partisan official to make it more difficult for you to obtain identification for the purpose of driving a car or getting a job, but there is LOADS of motivation for the same to prevent you from voting if you fit a particular demographic. Similarly, "neighborhood interviews" in which neighbors need to be consulted in order to allow you to move into a neighborhood aren't "inherently discriminatory", but sit through one (as my family did as the only Asian family to be required to sit for that "formality") and you recognize precisely what that sort of thing is meant to dissuade.

So you're comparing taking a copy of your birth certificate up to the BMV for your photo id to a neighborhood interview? Do the people at the BMV look funny at the Asian guy? Do they not service him?

As demonstrated in the video Dimmer posted, the process is actually pretty invasive. When was the last time you were asked to provide a bank balance with "activity" to buy cigarettes?

To get a license in Los Angeles, my wife had to bring insane documentation (including bank statements and her cable bill) to prove that she was there legally and was a resident of Westwood. She didn't have issues from any other state that she's resided in, but I was there with her and it seemed extremely intrusive. The employee seemed to be not too keen on her being a non-US citizen.

bandit0013 wrote:

So you're comparing taking a copy of your birth certificate up to the BMV for your photo id to a neighborhood interview? Do the people at the BMV look funny at the Asian guy? Do they not service him?

Is there only one day a year--in the case of the election of a U.S. Senator one day every six years--when you can get the BMV to issue you a driver's license?

Wow - so many derails thrown in the mix, it's hard to know how to respond. I guess I'd still like to know the answer to this:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

To put it in perspective:

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The money spent on restrictive voter ID laws could just as profitably be spent on lightning rods for polling stations - and would have the added benefit of not disenfranchising anyone.

Or this:

Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

You can't make the assumption that the 790 people are legit. Also, if the election wasn't decided by 790 votes its inconsequential. It's just as likely they knew this and didn't bother to go back and prove ID. If the election had been close would they have? We can't know.

Bolded the part I'm responding to. This is legally, morally, and factually wrong. Every vote needs to count in a democracy. By your logic, it would be okay to disenfranchise any number of people as long as it's less than the margin of victory. Furthermore, your logic would also mean that voter fraud is acceptable, as long as it's less than the margin of victory.

Is there any number of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote that would become unacceptable to you?

Or this:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I'd love to hear a good articulation of why this is, other than "the voters most likely to be impacted tend to vote for Democrats".

Meanwhile:

bandit0013 wrote:

As for suppressing democratic turnout, have you provided real evidence that this is occurring? All your links seemed to have no evidence of it, just hyperbole. How about we flip the argument, instead of me having to prove why it's a good thing that voters can show they are who they say they are, how about you prove that it's a bad idea to do so? I would think of the two sides, that's the much more difficult argument to make.

If you don't have some form of identification and some alleges fraud occurred, how do you check it? Is that really a position you want to support?

The former head of the GOP in Texas said that their voter ID law was intended to suppress legitimate Democratic turnout. That's very clearly the intent. This is a fabricated crisis, being used as an opportunity to make it more difficult for groups who generally vote Democratic to have their votes counted.

Someone alleging fraud after a ballot has been cast is a problem that isn't solved by having voters present identification. This is discussed in the Wisconsin thread I linked previously (it's worth a read), but my basic position is:

Dimmerswitch[/url]]I can see why folks are concerned that ballots which are submitted by individuals who are subsequently found to be ineligible cannot be tossed out after the fact. This is a thorny problem, because of course it's important to allow for anonymous voting. I don't know whether it's insoluble (folks who are smarter at crypto and math than I am would be better able to determine that). A Voter ID law wouldn't prevent this portion of the problem. Proponents of the bill would argue that individual fraud would be eliminated or cut down, because identity and address verification would happen before any ballots were cast. I'm not convinced that's the case. The Chicago resident mentioned in the Milwaukee investigation could easily have gotten a Wisconsin license or ID, using their friends' address. It seems like folks who are determined to commit individual vote fraud are not likely to be deterred in significant numbers by the additional hurdle of obtaining a photo ID.

More to the point: there still doesn't seem to be any incidence that individual voter fraud is happening on any significant scale. The Milwaukee investigation shows that mistakes / misbehavior by election officials are many, many, many times more likely to result in voting irregularities. I think that's where any efforts should be directed first, both because that's more likely to have a higher return on investment, and because I'm extremely averse to any approach which has the potential to disenfranchise other citizens - especially those among us who are least advantaged.

Paleocon wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

The problem is (as demonstrated in the video dimmerswitch posted) with implementation.

There is no political reason for someone a political party or partisan official to make it more difficult for you to obtain identification for the purpose of driving a car or getting a job, but there is LOADS of motivation for the same to prevent you from voting if you fit a particular demographic. Similarly, "neighborhood interviews" in which neighbors need to be consulted in order to allow you to move into a neighborhood aren't "inherently discriminatory", but sit through one (as my family did as the only Asian family to be required to sit for that "formality") and you recognize precisely what that sort of thing is meant to dissuade.

So you're comparing taking a copy of your birth certificate up to the BMV for your photo id to a neighborhood interview? Do the people at the BMV look funny at the Asian guy? Do they not service him?

As demonstrated in the video Dimmer posted, the process is actually pretty invasive. When was the last time you were asked to provide a bank balance with "activity" to buy cigarettes?

Proof of Residence in Wisconsin
The following constitute acceptable Proof-of-Residence if the document contains the information specified above:

A current and valid Wisconsin driver license.
A current and valid Wisconsin identification card.
Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit.
Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
A residential lease which is effective for a period that includes election day (NOT for first-time voters registering by mail).
A university, college or technical institute fee card (must include photo).
A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo).
A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing not earlier than 90 days before election day.
Bank statement.
Paycheck.
A check or other document issued by a unit of government.

The person in the video had 12 options for proving residency. They didn't "HAVE" to show their bank statement as any other of those things would have been valid. I would imagine that part of the criteria for using a bank statement per BMV policies is that it has to show some activity. Otherwise a person could in theory set up an account that they didn't intend to use to defraud the system.

That video is stupid. Making an issue out of a bank statement when there are other options. Biatching about the $28 when her snowflake didn't mention that the id was only for voting (and therefore wanted the free one).

bandit0013 wrote:

Proof of Residence in Wisconsin
The following constitute acceptable Proof-of-Residence if the document contains the information specified above:

A current and valid Wisconsin driver license.
A current and valid Wisconsin identification card.
Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit.
Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
A residential lease which is effective for a period that includes election day (NOT for first-time voters registering by mail).
A university, college or technical institute fee card (must include photo).
A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo).
A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing not earlier than 90 days before election day.
Bank statement.
Paycheck.
A check or other document issued by a unit of government.

Fixed. I find it particularly awesome that the page you submitted links to the actual GAB information about our Voter ID changes.

GAB information about Wisconsin's Voter ID law[/url] (warning, PDF)]* A Wisconsin DOT-issued driver license, even if driving privileges are revoked or suspended
* A Wisconsin DOT-issued identification card
* A Military ID card issued by a U.S. uniformed service
* A U.S. passport
Identifications above must have an expiration date after the November 2, 2010 election.
* A certificate of naturalization that was issued not earlier than two years before the date of an election at which it is presented
* An unexpired driving receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT
* An unexpired identification card receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT
* An identification card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin
* An unexpired identification card issued by a Wisconsin-accredited university or college that contains the following:
-- Date of issuance
-- Signature of student
-- Expiration date not later than two years after date of issuance

@Dimmer

I responded to your 790 quip

bandit0013 wrote:

@Dimmer,

They weren't denied the right to vote. They cast a provisional ballot and just had to come back with an ID. They didn't. It's on them.

In a democracy every valid vote should count and without proof of ID those votes were invalid. I was just pointing out that since the votes weren't in the margin of victory that probably those people didn't bother to come back and provide the proof. I have no issue with this, and I don't see why you would.

As for suppressing democratic turnout, have you provided real evidence that this is occurring? All your links seemed to have no evidence of it, just hyperbole. How about we flip the argument, instead of me having to prove why it's a good thing that voters can show they are who they say they are, how about you prove that it's a bad idea to do so? I would think of the two sides, that's the much more difficult argument to make.

If you don't have some form of identification and some alleges fraud occurred, how do you check it? Is that really a position you want to support?

Because of all the things an ID is necessary for, ensuring that everyone has proper ID is a good thing. Verifying voting eligibility is an additional perk of that. Unless you're advocating that we shouldn't use IDs in the myriad of other places they are required? Should I not have to prove who I am to sign up for cable service? Hang on, I'm gonna go order you some HBO.

The GOP guy is an asshole. Period. Getting an ID should be a reasonable process, I haven't advocated for anything less. Taking the stance that there should be no barriers whatsoever to voting though is pretty silly. You obviously have to register regardless and registration is predicated on proof or residency. If you're drawing welfare, have a job, etc etc etc you already have an ID. I'm really uncertain who exactly is being disenfranchised. Someone who really really wants to vote but just can't get that damn id. Could you find some for me? Because I can't find any.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

To put it in perspective:

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The money spent on restrictive voter ID laws could just as profitably be spent on lightning rods for polling stations - and would have the added benefit of not disenfranchising anyone.

Or this:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Is there any number of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote that would become unacceptable to you?

Or this:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I'd love to hear a good articulation of why this is, other than "the voters most likely to be impacted tend to vote for Democrats".

Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Proof of Residence in Wisconsin
The following constitute acceptable Proof-of-Residence if the document contains the information specified above:

A current and valid Wisconsin driver license.
A current and valid Wisconsin identification card.
Any other official identification card or license issued by a Wisconsin governmental body or unit.
Any identification card issued by an employer in the normal course of business and bearing a photo of the card holder, but not including a business card.
A real estate tax bill or receipt for the current year or the year preceding the date of the election.
A residential lease which is effective for a period that includes election day (NOT for first-time voters registering by mail).
A university, college or technical institute fee card (must include photo).
A university, college or technical institute identification card (must include photo).
A gas, electric or telephone service statement (utility bill) for the period commencing not earlier than 90 days before election day.
Bank statement.
Paycheck.
A check or other document issued by a unit of government.

Fixed. I find it particularly awesome that the page you submitted links to the actual GAB information about our Voter ID changes.

GAB information about Wisconsin's Voter ID law[/url] (warning, PDF)]* A Wisconsin DOT-issued driver license, even if driving privileges are revoked or suspended
* A Wisconsin DOT-issued identification card
* A Military ID card issued by a U.S. uniformed service
* A U.S. passport
Identifications above must have an expiration date after the November 2, 2010 election.
* A certificate of naturalization that was issued not earlier than two years before the date of an election at which it is presented
* An unexpired driving receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT
* An unexpired identification card receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT
* An identification card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin
* An unexpired identification card issued by a Wisconsin-accredited university or college that contains the following:
-- Date of issuance
-- Signature of student
-- Expiration date not later than two years after date of issuance

Um, what you linked is the requirement to vote at the poll, which is a photo id. What I linked was what you need to prove residency to get the free voter id card.

So what's your point? Why are you crossing off those things in the list. They're not the same thing. I think you're confused.

Never mind. Deleted since I was going more off topic.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The money spent on restrictive voter ID laws could just as profitably be spent on lightning rods for polling stations - and would have the added benefit of not disenfranchising anyone.

[/quote]

You haven't proved any disenfranchisement. You haven't shown that obtaining an ID is restrictive at all. If it was it would be (rightly) unconstitutional. Numerous state supreme court have ruled that so long as the ID doesn't carry a $ cost it is not restrictive.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Is there any number of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote that would become unacceptable to you?

The number of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote is 0. In your example the voters were allowed to cast provisional ballots that would be counted as soon as they provided ID. That these voters did not bring ID and did not return with ID does not indicate any disenfranchisement at all, just that they didn't make it a priority to get back to the station with their ID. Your starting premise that they were denied their rights is false because they did not follow procedure in exercising the right. Had they brought back their ID (like the 100-some that did) they would have been counted accordingly. There is no evidence of discrimination.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

I'd love to hear a good articulation of why this is, other than "the voters most likely to be impacted tend to vote for Democrats".

[/quote]

Because IDs are necessary for an exceptional number of activities in the United States. Voting is a fundamental tenet in our democratic republic. However, for the democratic process to be meaningful and successful it must be fair. Requiring an ID that is not an undo burden and increases the fairness (certification, eligibility) of an election is good for the democratic process. Requiring no proof of residency, id, etc would be bad for the democratic process, particularly when it comes to ballot box stuffing and other things that happen in elections around the world. Safeguarding the election process is a critical activity.

bandit0013 wrote:

Um, what you linked is the requirement to vote at the poll, which is a photo id. What I linked was what you need to prove residency to get the free voter id card.

So what's your point? Why are you crossing off those things in the list. They're not the same thing. I think you're confused.

Your list is not a list of things required for a voter ID card (showing a valid unexpired driver's license or ID card to get an ID card is redundant, no?). The DMV sets and enforces those requirements. Your list is things which would previously establish residency for voters in Wisconsin . I've personally voted in Wisconsin before by providing a utility bill.

That list is changed by the Voter ID bill passed by the state legislature earlier this year, which is why I provided corrections.

So dimmer, I responded to all your comments after your prodding.

Again I'm going to ask you to show documented evidence of disenfranchisement, intimidation, or a poll tax. I'm going to ask you to show that these 300k people without IDs that you cited are being forcibly prevented from obtaining a free ID.

Your turn.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Um, what you linked is the requirement to vote at the poll, which is a photo id. What I linked was what you need to prove residency to get the free voter id card.

So what's your point? Why are you crossing off those things in the list. They're not the same thing. I think you're confused.

Your list is not a list of things required for a voter ID card (showing a valid unexpired driver's license or ID card to get an ID card is redundant, no?). The DMV sets and enforces those requirements. Your list is things which would previously establish residency for voters in Wisconsin . I've personally voted in Wisconsin before by providing a utility bill.

That list is changed by the Voter ID bill passed by the state legislature earlier this year, which is why I provided corrections. :)

If you have the driver's license you don't need the ID card, per documentation. So yes, it's redundant but if you stand in line to get a voter id card you don't need using your driver's license that's acceptable... you're not too bright. Maybe you shouldn't vote.

I posted the list of residency things because proof of residency is required to get the voter ID card. Some people were making a big deal about showing the bank statement and I was merely showing that you don't have to show the bank statement if you don't want to, any other of those items is fine.