<p>I have a photo ID. In fact I have a bunch of them. I have birth certificates, marriage certificates, tax documents, mortgage documents, utility bills, auto registrations, passports, and discharge papers coming out of my a** … um, I mean filing cabinets. I keep up on current events and voting patterns of my elected representatives. In my necks of the wood, you need photo ID to vote for Dog Catcher … and you get ridiculed if you chose ignorance. </p>
<p>None of this really matters. What matters is that the people whose lives are affected by government policies and action have a say in who’s making decisions. A lot of what I’d do if voted King would be bad for America … simply because a single voice isn’t appropriate for a pluralistic society. A few questionable votes? It’s the price of inclusion. </p>
<p>PS#1, re: ALEC, do you really think the Koch brothers care about voting rights?</p>
<p>PS#2, do you really think photo ID will be the end of voter fraud? A finger in the dyke my friends.</p>
<p>“l also do not think that college students should be allowed to vote in the town they go to school, unless they can prove they are independent adults.”</p>
<p>Hey, we’re making progress! No out-of-town students (3 million voters), no out-of-country persons (1 million voters), no one in hospitals or nursing homes or hospice, etc (2 million voters), no one traveling for business or family (1 million voters), and now no one who can’t come up with the money or papers to “prove” who they are, regardless of how many years they’ve resided in town. If we can just get a few more restrictions on voting we’ll REALLY be on our way to a better democracy.</p>
<p>I find the fear-based impulse towards accepting greater and greater regimentation astonishing. </p>
<p>I also find it astonishing that the very same people violently oppose the individual mandate in the Affordable Health Care Act, yet never point to the fact that the government mandates that they purchase auto insurance. </p>
<p>Personally, I am more consistent. I dislike both the individual mandate AND government identity cards. I can be persuaded that the former is of some use, in the absence of a better alternative: universal single-payer coverage. I really do not like the idea of mobile identity units roaming the country signing everyone up and anyone who doesn’t comply is a non-person. I work for the Census Bureau. Even we, who are constitutionally mandated to count everyone in the country, will respect someone’s desire to remain anonymous.</p>
<p>This is true, but it is not my constitutional right to deposit a check, purchase something with a credit card, or to fly on an airplane. However, it is my constitutional right to vote, and anything that infringes upon the ability of someone to exercise that right is inappropriate, IMO. </p>
<p>Without going overtly political in calling out a particular party, I’ll echo the sentiments that these laws are primarily not to prevent voter fraud. The truth is that the kind of people who are likely to be barred from voting by identification laws such as these are much more likely to vote a certain way, and certain groups have a vested interest in preventing these people from voting.</p>
<p>A simple Google search turns up lots of articles on non-citizens being registered to vote. The stupid 1992 Motor Voter Law didn’t require any proof of citizenship before registering people to vote.</p>
<p>I agree that voting is your constitutional right. I don’t agree that having photo i.d. unfairly infringes on that right.</p>
<p>My mother lived into her nineties. She no longer had a valid driver’s license or passport but still had picture i.d. from her assisted living facility.</p>
<p>Again, I don’t think it unreasonable to have picture i.d. to vote along with voter registration.</p>
Not having government-issued ID infringes on all sorts of rights in 2012. Why are you so comfortable with excluding people from modern society? Not to call out any political party, but I think the reason for keeping some people excluded is pretty clear. Becaue if they are controlled and managed, they will be more likely to vote a certain way.</p>
<p>We all know what a great job Florida does running the polls. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>If Florida has a problem with voter fraud, then Florida should develop a system to solve the problem. We don’t have that problem in my state, and we do not need to waste a lot of money fixing something that ain’t broke…not to mention risking trampling on civil liberties.</p>
<p>Isn’t there some type biometrics that could be used? Retina scans or blood comparison? Perhaps we could lessen the future concerns by having blood taken from all newborns. Then we could have a national voter registration verification blood bank that would kick in after 18 years (2030) so that anyone attempting to vote that year as a 18 year old would be subjected to technological verification.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if newborns can be effectively retina scanned? What about babies born blind? Is a retina scan any more expensive than the average state driver’s license fee?</p>
<p>I think most states have a motor vehicle registration data bank with the photo ids. These suggestions would just augment things like that.</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t your neighbors be voting on issues that affect their lives? Please rephrase your argument so it doesn’t take the form of a sound bite. (It’s not a bad argument … but the way it’s phrased denigrates its intent.)</p>
<p>“Perhaps we could lessen the future concerns by having blood taken from all newborns.”</p>
<p>Finally! A REAL solution! Of course that means anyone who refuses to have their kid “bled” forever forfeits the rights of citizenship for the child, but whatever.</p>
<p>As noted earlier, banks want finger prints on things.</p>
<p>I see a little difficulty in the airplane since you don’t have to be a citizen. Perhaps some sort of implant chip as part of the visa process. This would have to be worked out.</p>
<p>“The truth is that the kind of people who are likely to be barred from voting by identification laws such as these are much more likely to vote a certain way, and certain groups have a vested interest in preventing these people from voting.”</p>
<p>Who are the people nowadays that they do not have some short of a local/state/federal government photo id? In order to function in the society, the average person will get a high school/non-alcohol or non-DL state id/college id/DL/passport/military id. A poor person who needs to get federal welfare documents need a government issued photo id.They go out of their way to help low income populations to get the federal id so they can access the federal benefits. So who are these populations who do not have an id? In IN that have the photo requirement for voting, they created the mobile units that come and help anyone for whom it will be an inconvenience to go to the RMV to get any type of state licence and the vote photo license is free. SCOTUS also accepted that an individual is required to show id when requested by a government representative. Again who are these people who do not have an id, or it would be so extremely difficult to get an id? Why are we one of the few, if not the only country that does not require a photo id for voting?</p>
<p>Ana1 - The question isn’t “Is it a voting impediment to require photo ID?” The question is “Can acquisition of photo ID be made painless?” The answer to the latter question is currently “No.” If it was a requirement to provide the voter photo ID when registering to vote (just as state DMVs provides a photo ID to new drivers) then I’d have no problem with the concept. But requiring a person to pay to exercise the constitutional right to vote puts us right back in Poll Tax territory.</p>
<h1>52. What part of “non-citizens shouldn’t be voting” do you think is objectionable. Why not just let everyone who happens to be here on November 6th, citizen or not, vote? Would that be okay?</h1>