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

Well, of course. Who do you think is doing all that fake voting, anyway?

Hypatian wrote:

Well, of course. Who do you think is doing all that fake voting, anyway?

I would have thought that people would be more worried about "the Mexicans" voting illegally than black people.

NathanialG wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Well, of course. Who do you think is doing all that fake voting, anyway?

I would have thought that people would be more worried about "the Mexicans" voting illegally than black people.

Right, but prisons are full of black people and felons are not allowed to vote.

Sheesh, it's like you don't know anything.

[size=6]/sarcasm font[/size]

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?

Well:
Getting married.
Purchasing a firearm.
Applying for a permit to carry a firearm.
To get health insurance.
To get a job.
To buy a house.
To get a social security card.

The only one there specifically covered under the bill of rights is the second.

Sure, but things like CCWs, employment, and home loans aren't "rights" per se.

rosenhane wrote:
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?

Well:
Getting married.
Purchasing a firearm.
Applying for a permit to carry a firearm.
To get health insurance.
To get a job.
To buy a house.
To get a social security card.

The only one there specifically covered under the bill of rights is the second.

Why would you list a bunch of things only to admit they're not relevant in your last sentence.

Purchasing a firearm is a good point though. Since you can't kill someone with a vote I'm not entirely sure it's equal but I might have to think about that for a while.

clover wrote:

Sure, but things like CCWs, employment, and home loans aren't "rights" per se.

CCW would probably fall under the 2nd amendment, and employment is surely a right as much as health care or housing is, and I didn't say home loans, I said buying a house.

SixteenBlue wrote:
rosenhane wrote:
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?

Well:
Getting married.
Purchasing a firearm.
Applying for a permit to carry a firearm.
To get health insurance.
To get a job.
To buy a house.
To get a social security card.

The only one there specifically covered under the bill of rights is the second.

Why would you list a bunch of things only to admit they're not relevant in your last sentence.

Purchasing a firearm is a good point though. Since you can't kill someone with a vote I'm not entirely sure it's equal but I might have to think about that for a while.

Please show me where voting is listed in the bill of rights.

Or are you saying that health care, having a job, and housing are not rights?

clover wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

Well, of course. Who do you think is doing all that fake voting, anyway?

I would have thought that people would be more worried about "the Mexicans" voting illegally than black people.

Right, but prisons are full of black people and felons are not allowed to vote.

Sheesh, it's like you don't know anything.

[size=6]/sarcasm font[/size]

Felons can actually vote in two states, Vermont and Maine. The reasoning is that it helps makes them feel like they're still connected to society and not completely written off by the system.

rosenhane wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
rosenhane wrote:
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?

Well:
Getting married.
Purchasing a firearm.
Applying for a permit to carry a firearm.
To get health insurance.
To get a job.
To buy a house.
To get a social security card.

The only one there specifically covered under the bill of rights is the second.

Why would you list a bunch of things only to admit they're not relevant in your last sentence.

Purchasing a firearm is a good point though. Since you can't kill someone with a vote I'm not entirely sure it's equal but I might have to think about that for a while.

Please show me where voting is listed in the bill of rights.

Or are you saying that health care, having a job, and housing are not rights?

Actually, they're not. Not mentioned at all. Not if you're trying to pull a strict Constitutionalist's stance. You can't have it both ways.

Voting isn't in the Bill of Rights, and you and everyone else here know damned good and well it's not. It's mentioned in Article VI, Section 3 of the main body of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had the individual states make their own rules for elections. Since then, we've handled voting rules/rights with regular legislation like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as stipulations in the US Code (Title 2, Chapter 14, Subchapter 1, Section 431 for a good start).

I actually don't mind the concept of moving to a single standard for voting ID. But to do that right means a set of federal election standards instead of the crazy-quilt, disenfranchising mess we have. There are way too many people in both parties who have a vested interest in making sure nothing like that ever happens.

What I don't want is it put in place the same year as a Presidential election. Make a rule, make it free, and give people a couple years to put it together. But the way things stand it's an obvious, cheap maneuver to adjust voting demographics and needs to be stopped.

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

bandit0013 wrote:

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

That's an entirely different type of vote. If you want to get down to technicalities, you could kill someone with a voter ID card.

Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

That's an entirely different type of vote. If you want to get down to technicalities, you could kill someone with a voter ID card.

Clearly we need Juror ID cards.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

That's an entirely different type of vote. If you want to get down to technicalities, you could kill someone with a voter ID card.

Clearly we need Juror ID cards.

I bet there are illegals on juries that are sentencing people to death and life in prison. We better spend millions (billions?) on investigations and cards so only citizens have that duty!

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

That's an entirely different type of vote. If you want to get down to technicalities, you could kill someone with a voter ID card.

Clearly we need Juror ID cards.

I bet there are illegals on juries that are sentencing people to death and life in prison. We better spend millions (billions?) on investigations and cards so only citizens have that duty!

Isn't voting registration used for jury summons?

bandit0013 wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

That's an entirely different type of vote. If you want to get down to technicalities, you could kill someone with a voter ID card.

Clearly we need Juror ID cards.

I bet there are illegals on juries that are sentencing people to death and life in prison. We better spend millions (billions?) on investigations and cards so only citizens have that duty!

Isn't voting registration used for jury summons? ;)

First they came for our jobs--now they're coming for OUR LIVES!

IMAGE(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/05/120502_cartoon_600_605.jpg)

Aww, I flew all the way across the country to see someone else made the point. Why should voter id laws be punitive to deal with an almost non-existent problem when campaign finance laws are lax in any area of massive abuse and perfidy?

Stengah wrote:

Felons can actually vote in two states, Vermont and Maine. The reasoning is that it helps makes them feel like they're still connected to society and not completely written off by the system.

That's just ridiculous! Why should we treat them like people?

bandit0013 wrote:
KrazyTacoFO wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Technically you can kill someone with a vote... it's called a jury trial.

That's an entirely different type of vote. If you want to get down to technicalities, you could kill someone with a voter ID card.

Clearly we need Juror ID cards.

I bet there are illegals on juries that are sentencing people to death and life in prison. We better spend millions (billions?) on investigations and cards so only citizens have that duty!

Isn't voting registration used for jury summons? ;)

But registering to vote doesn't require a photo id. (I was being facetious about jury cards)

That's why it's not a photo ID problem. If it's a problem at all (which I don't believe it is), then it is a problem with the management and not the voter.

“The stipulation says that the state is ‘not aware of’ any incidents of voter impersonation, which the voter ID law is allegedly designed to address, and that the state is not prepared to present any evidence in support of the existence of such fraud,” Leach said.

For some light reading, have a look at the opinion regarding Indiana's law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...

It lays out a fine road map on how to challenge such laws, and what is needed.

Sad truth is you do not need facts to pass a law, but facts sure help in over-turning one. Additionally the court will often get back to the electoral process in solving legislators who routinely pass pointless laws.

Former Republican Party Chairman in Florida, Jim Greer, gave a deposition in May in which he described efforts and actions taken by the Republican leadership in the state to disenfranchise black and minority voters, and quash minority outreach programs suggested to the Party.

Don't worry though. Any process run by an interested party that disenfranchises tens of thousands of potentially opposing voters in a swing state at a potential cost of tens of millions of dollars must be preventing an even larger problem. Right? ...Guys?

At one point, when lawyers asked her about the details of the voter ID law, Aichele responded, “I don’t know what the law says.”

But when lawyers questioned her about the number of Pennsylvanians who need ID, Aichele was adamant that 99 percent of voters had valid ID.

When plaintiffs’ attorneys cited earlier Department of State testimony that the number is likely inaccurate, Aichele said simply, “I disagree.”

She later admitted that the state does not know the real number of voters who need ID.

Well, this is pretty stunning:

A new nationwide analysis of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000 shows that while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent.

So, here is the count:

Analysis of the resulting comprehensive News21 election fraud database turned up 10 cases of voter impersonation. With 146 million registered voters in the United States during that time, those 10 cases represent one out of about every 15 million prospective voters.

1/15000000 = not a problem

An extremely interesting part deals with the new Voter ID law in Pennsylvania which is currently under review by the courts:

In a pretrial document released by the ACLU, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, represented by the state Attorney General’s Office, could not identify any cases of voter impersonation at the polls.

The state said it would offer no evidence that “in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania or elsewhere” or that “in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absence of a photo ID law.”

Pennsylvania officials, who responded to the News21 public record requests, also reported no cases of Election Day voter-impersonation fraud since 2000.

Glad they put in that Voter ID law to prevent something that isn't happening.

Good thing it costs no money and never prevents legitimate voters from voting...

Looks like voter ID law supporters are homeopathists at heart.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Looks like voter ID law supporters are homeopathists at heart.