Photo ID to vote

• queencitybuckeye

  Thread Bomber;727944 wrote:

  
  Roll Red Roll
• fish82

  

  queencitybuckeye;728038 wrote:Roll Red Roll

  Dude!
• fan_from_texas

  Bigdogg;722675 wrote:I don't have a problem with some form of ID for newly registered voters. I do have a problem with the legislation requiring everyone have a state issued ID every time you vote. It is way over the top and not needed. As far as calling it raciest I agree it's not, but it is discriminatory.
  
  HB 159 by the numbers:
  
  * 887,000 voting-age Ohioans likely do not have Government-issued photo ID
  * 25% of African Americans nationwide do not have government-issued photo ID
  * 18% of voters over age 65 nationwide do not have government-issued photo ID
  * 15% of voters with income lower than $35,000/year don’t have government- issued photo ID
  * $23 Price of a driver’s license
  * $21.50 Price of a birth certificate
  * $8.50 Price of a state ID
  * $10 million Cost to Indiana provide free ID’s to voters
  * 0 evidence of voter impersonation fraud

  I do poll monitoring for each election here in Wisconsin. Voter fraud is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually impossible to detect or do anything about; the general assumption is that it will happen in roughly equal amounts on both sides, and that it's too much of a hassle to do enough cheating to sway an election. But I have witnessed first-hand attempts of voter fraud. When I went through training to see how easy it was to commit, it was mind-boggling to me that we didn't have to show IDs to vote. This law is a good change in the right direction.
  

  Bigdogg;722929 wrote:Again, I have no problem with requiring some form of ID to vote, it should not be mandated to be a state ID. Also, I see no where in the Constitution where a state ID is a prerequisite to vote surprised the Tea party is not all over this (rolling eyes). To those who want to argue that is is not discriminatory or if you can't afford a ID you shouldn't vote, have fun in court with that one. Even FFT wouldn't take that one.

  
  Well, I wouldn't take that one because I'm an energy lawyer, not a civil rights lawyer, which has nothing to do with the merits.
  
  As to the merits, I believe Voter ID laws have withstood scrutiny from courts in the past, as requiring voters to prove with a state-issued ID that they're eligible to vote seems like a pretty painless way to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.
• O-Trap

  

  fan_from_texas;728073 wrote:I do poll monitoring for each election here in Wisconsin. Voter fraud is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually impossible to detect or do anything about; the general assumption is that it will happen in roughly equal amounts on both sides, and that it's too much of a hassle to do enough cheating to sway an election. But I have witnessed first-hand attempts of voter fraud. When I went through training to see how easy it was to commit, it was mind-boggling to me that we didn't have to show IDs to vote. This law is a good change in the right direction.
  
  
  
  Well, I wouldn't take that one because I'm an energy lawyer, not a civil rights lawyer, which has nothing to do with the merits.
  
  As to the merits, I believe Voter ID laws have withstood scrutiny from courts in the past, as requiring voters to prove with a state-issued ID that they're eligible to vote seems like a pretty painless way to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.

  
  /thread
• BoatShoes

  If I'm remembering correctly the Supreme Court validated an Indiana voter I.D. law a couple of years ago. They said that requiring a voter to get a free I.D. wasn't eminently burdensome above and beyond the burden to vote. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion. Nevertheless I think it was left open so that a constituent might challenge the law if they could demonstrate a discriminatory disparate impact after the fact. Fwiw the ACLU disagreed with the decision as an unjustified impingement on personal liberty.
• wkfan

  BoatShoes;728865 wrote:Fwiw the ACLU disagreed with the decision as an unjustified impingement on personal liberty.

  
  Color me shocked and amazed.........
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;728865 wrote:If I'm remembering correctly the Supreme Court validated an Indiana voter I.D. law a couple of years ago. They said that requiring a voter to get a free I.D. wasn't eminently burdensome above and beyond the burden to vote. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion. Nevertheless I think it was left open so that a constituent might challenge the law if they could demonstrate a discriminatory disparate impact after the fact.

  See, I hate that an impact can be depicted as discriminatory. Sometimes, statistics fall where they fall, despite no descrimination taking place.
  
  Too, you can easily end up with a bunch of people saying, "I don't like this, so I'm intentionally going to act a certain way, so that if enough people do the same, we can skew the results!"
  

  BoatShoes;728865 wrote:Fwiw the ACLU disagreed with the decision as an unjustified impingement on personal liberty.

  I'm flabergast!
• fan_from_texas

  BoatShoes;728865 wrote:If I'm remembering correctly the Supreme Court validated an Indiana voter I.D. law a couple of years ago. They said that requiring a voter to get a free I.D. wasn't eminently burdensome above and beyond the burden to vote. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion. Nevertheless I think it was left open so that a constituent might challenge the law if they could demonstrate a discriminatory disparate impact after the fact. Fwiw the ACLU disagreed with the decision as an unjustified impingement on personal liberty.

  Yes, SCOTUS upheld the Indiana law. Other state supreme courts (e.g., Georgia) have held similarly. If the OH model follows the IN model, it's virtually certain that it would be okay. I mean, Stevens, J. wrote the opinion! Newsflash for left-leaning organizations: if Stevens writes the opinion shooting down your issue, you've got a tough row to hoe.
• O-Trap

  

  fan_from_texas;728906 wrote:Yes, SCOTUS upheld the Indiana law. Other state supreme courts (e.g., Georgia) have held similarly. If the OH model follows the IN model, it's virtually certain that it would be okay. I mean, Stevens, J. wrote the opinion! Newsflash for left-leaning organizations: if Stevens writes the opinion shooting down your issue, you've got a tough row to hoe.

  Yeah, it seems like only the partisan extremists would try to stir this pot. I just don't see any sort of case at all made to object to this ... and if so, I can't possibly imagine it being a competent case.
• Skyhook79

  

  [video]http://nobullnobias.com/2011/03/29/bill-ayres-thinks-other-countries-should-vote-for-the-us-president/[/video]
  
  
  The heck with voter ID lets just open up the American voting booths to everyone.
• Bigdogg

  fan_from_texas;728073 wrote:I do poll monitoring for each election here in Wisconsin. Voter fraud is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually impossible to detect or do anything about; the

  Well then please feel free to tell about how you accomplished this and how many cases you saw or where it was reported. I hope you did not personally commit fraud, you could be disbarred.
  
  

  fan_from_texas;728073 wrote:As to the merits, I believe Voter ID laws have withstood scrutiny from courts in the past, as requiring voters to prove with a state-issued ID that they're eligible to vote seems like a pretty painless way to ensure the integrity of the democratic process.

  It's is going to continued to get challenged and it may be upheld, but it's going to cost lots of money to keep defending that can be better spent creating jobs right now.
• O-Trap

  

  Bigdogg;729186 wrote:It's is going to continued to get challenged and it may be upheld, but it's going to cost lots of money to keep defending that can be better spent creating jobs right now.

  I'm all for job creation (after my year, trust me), but I don't want those moneys to be creating jobs ex nihilo without a need.
  
  Moreover, I've never considered spending money on protecting our democratic process against fraud as a waste, and I don't think you'll find many who do. Creating, and continually funding, unnecessary jobs at the expense of the whole, while better than a free handout, is still not fixing the problem. Government employees should exist out of necessity. Other than that, the best way for the government to create jobs is to create an environment conducive to private companies expanding here within the United States.
• fan_from_texas

  Bigdogg;729186 wrote:Well then please feel free to tell about how you accomplished this and how many cases you saw or where it was reported.

  How I accomplished what? I said that voter fraud is pretty easy to commit, and that virtually anyone could do it if they were so inclined, but the general presumption is that it's too much hassle and occurs equally enough on both sides that it rarely affects an election. Are you wanting me to provide you with a how-to manual or something? You can pull up the state code and look at what the grounds are for challenging an elector.
  
  I'm not sure why you're acting like a douche here. Voter fraud happens, and it happens with some regularity. You can show up and monitor an election yourself if you'd like--you don't need any particular training, or at least you don't in Wisconsin. I personally witnessed one clear-cut case of attempted fraud, and I notified the Chief Election Observer, who called the police. By the time they arrived, the attempted cheater ran off. I've also witnessed at least a dozen or so attempts to cast illegal ballots which I or others caught, though it's not always clear if someone is intending to cast an illegal ballot or just unaware of the rules.
  

  It's is going to continued to get challenged and it may be upheld, but it's going to cost lots of money to keep defending that can be better spent creating jobs right now.

  May be upheld? The Supreme Court already upheld a similar standard, so if I were a betting man, I'm pretty sure I know where I'd put my money. Re the cost, that's the most asinine argument I think I've ever heard. That would make whether we pass a law contingent on whether someone is likely to disagree with it. By that same logic, the smoking ban never should've been enacted, because it's certainly being challenged and costing money. Heck, people challenge speeding tickets all the time, but that doesn't strike me as a reason to get rid of speed limits.
  
  My sense if that you're just trying to stir the pot here and oppose this on strictly partisan grounds. That's your prerogative, but it's certainly a stupid path to take.
• stlouiedipalma

  Skyhook79;729176 wrote:[video]http://nobullnobias.com/2011/03/29/bill-ayres-thinks-other-countries-should-vote-for-the-us-president/[/video]
  
  
  The heck with voter ID lets just open up the American voting booths to everyone.

  
  Not such a far-fetched idea when you consider that the SCOTUS has allowed corporations unlimited spending on elections and candidates.
• Bigdogg

  fan_from_texas;729253 wrote:How I accomplished what? I said that voter fraud is pretty easy to commit, and that virtually anyone could do it if they were so inclined, but the general presumption is that it's too much hassle and occurs equally enough on both sides that it rarely affects an election. Are you wanting me to provide you with a how-to manual or something? You can pull up the state code and look at what the grounds are for challenging an elector.

  You also said that the general assumption is that it will happen in roughly equal amounts on both sides. If this is true then why bother. You said you saw it but why did you fail to explain what you saw? You pulled it out your ass?
  

  fan_from_texas;729253 wrote:I'm not sure why you're acting like a douche here. Voter fraud happens, and it happens with some regularity. You can show up and monitor an election yourself if you'd like--you don't need any particular training, or at least you don't in Wisconsin. I personally witnessed one clear-cut case of attempted fraud, and I notified the Chief Election Observer, who called the police. By the time they arrived, the attempted cheater ran off. I've also witnessed at least a dozen or so attempts to cast illegal ballots which I or others caught, though it's not always clear if someone is intending to cast an illegal ballot or just unaware of the rules.

  
  
  If you are really a fiscal conservative then why should you want to spend money on a problem that really makes no impact on the election? You want it both ways. My mom worked as a poll worker for over 30 years and did not recall one instance of voter ID fraud. If anyone on here can provide empirical proof that there is widespread voter ID fraud then I pledge that the bigdogg will never post on this forum. Again, I really don't care and honestly did not know you had other options of voting beside showing my drivers license. I always have. To infer I am making this a partisan issue just to stir the pot is one of the stupidest post I ever saw you post. I see this as unnecessary waste of money and as a taxpayer, a waste of tax dollars for a problem that don's exist. Furthermore, this legislation would not prevent voter ID fraud for absentee voting.
  
  LJ,
  I hereby request to be permanently banned from the political forum if anyone can provide empirical proof of widespread voter ID fraud. I will let you be the judge of the validly of such said study. Here is your chance!!!
• Bigdogg

  stlouiedipalma;729286 wrote:Not such a far-fetched idea when you consider that the SCOTUS has allowed corporations unlimited spending on elections and candidates.

  
  Who the hell is Bill Ayers and why would anyone care?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I'm finding a special place in my heart for bigdogg. He's kinda like an older Gibby!
  
  I actually look forward to reading his posts :: gasp! ::
• queencitybuckeye

  Bigdogg;729186 wrote:but it's going to cost lots of money to keep defending that can be better spent creating jobs right now.

  Unless you're calling for tax cuts to return the money to the private sector, it won't create jobs. The government doesn't create jobs.
• fan_from_texas

  Bigdogg;729378 wrote:You also said that the general assumption is that it will happen in roughly equal amounts on both sides. If this is true then why bother.

  Tax fraud is also fairly rampant, as is speeding, but I'm not sure those are good justifications not to at least make an attempt. There are several fairly easy steps (like requiring people to provide an ID before voting) that would dramatically reduce the cheating.
  

  You said you saw it but why did you fail to explain what you saw? You pulled it out your ass?

  I didn't fail to explain what I saw; I declined to explain it because I didn't think I was on trial here, and my general sense if that you've made up your mind about this issue already. If you're not willing to be convinced, and are more apt to start lashing out with insults, I'm not sure it's worth the effort. I filed a police report; I'm not sure if that's something that's still available (this was in the 2008 election), or even where it would be available. It was signed by election observers representing both parties, so it was confirmed as a pretty egregious attempt at fraudulent voting.
  
  Do you really find it to be that farfetched that people would try to vote illegally? You can go down to any college campus on election day and find a number of people who vote absentee back home and then vote in the local election as well; this is pretty common knowledge and essentially untraceable/not worth the effort to trace. It's not right, but it's a pretty common practice.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "I do have a problem with the legislation requiring everyone have a state issued ID every time you vote."
  
  
  As opposed to what, a blockbuster card? I'm completely ignorant that this was ever an issue. When I voted each of the last four years we HAD to show physical proof of who we were- and this was certainly in the U.S. Are there really places in the U.S. where you can just walk up and say you are "so and so" and can vote? And requiring that people have proof that they are who they say they are is problematic in what way? Jesus. In many other countries you need a government ID just to rent a video or get a cell phone....I can't imagine not requiring people to verify who they are for something as important as voting.
• fan_from_texas

  Manhattan Buckeye;729456 wrote: Are there really places in the U.S. where you can just walk up and say you are "so and so" and can vote? And requiring that people have proof that they are who they say they are is problematic in what way?

  In Wisconsin, you show up and state your name. If you're on the list of people who live there and haven't been crossed off yet, you can vote, period. You can walk out the door, come back in, say a separate name, and there is no legal basis by which an election observer can challenge your vote. If you say a name that isn't on the list, you don't have to provide ID; you simply have to swear that you're telling the truth and have someone else who says a name that is on the list vouch for you. An observer can ask you a few questions, but essentially no matter what, you can still vote as long as you say you live there and have the right to vote. It's nigh-impossible to do anything to stop it. It's mind-boggling to me how easy it is to cheat the system.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  fan_from_texas;729463 wrote:In Wisconsin, you show up and state your name. If you're on the list of people who live there and haven't been crossed off yet, you can vote, period. You can walk out the door, come back in, say a separate name, and there is no legal basis by which an election observer can challenge your vote. If you say a name that isn't on the list, you don't have to provide ID; you simply have to swear that you're telling the truth and have someone else who says a name that is on the list vouch for you. An observer can ask you a few questions, but essentially no matter what, you can still vote as long as you say you live there and have the right to vote. It's nigh-impossible to do anything to stop it. It's mind-boggling to me how easy it is to cheat the system.

  
  Good lord, that's even nuttier than the Wisconsin public teachers' position. There's no way that could work in Virginia, particularly in cities where home ownership is public record. I can go online and find the names and addresses of everyone who owns a home in our former voting district - granted it wouldn't include those that rent or lease properties or otherwise aren't registered to vote, but any halfway competent homeless person, let alone a young political activist with internet access, could cheat the system easily if we weren't made to produce proof of who we were.
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;729378 wrote: LJ,
  I hereby request to be permanently banned from the political forum if anyone can provide empirical proof of widespread voter ID fraud. I will let you be the judge of the validly of such said study. Here is your chance!!!

  
  You already asked for proof that it happens at all, and were flogged about the head and neck with numerous examples. So you really meant to say "widespread" the first time, huh? :rolleyes:
  
  That said, I doubt anyone would actively work to have you banned...free entertainment is hard to come by.
• fan_from_texas

  Manhattan Buckeye;729487 wrote:Good lord, that's even nuttier than the Wisconsin public teachers' position. There's no way that could work in Virginia, particularly in cities where home ownership is public record. I can go online and find the names and addresses of everyone who owns a home in our former voting district - granted it wouldn't include those that rent or lease properties or otherwise aren't registered to vote, but any halfway competent homeless person, let alone a young political activist with internet access, could cheat the system easily if we weren't made to produce proof of who we were.

  Yes, it's a terrible system. No idea if other states are different, but Wisconsin is ridiculous. Requiring people at least to show ID seems like a very easy and reasonable step in the right direction to limit the most egregious instances of fraud.
• fan_from_texas

  Bigdogg;729378 wrote:I hereby request to be permanently banned from the political forum if anyone can provide empirical proof of widespread voter ID fraud. I will let you be the judge of the validly of such said study. Here is your chance!!!

  
  I don't know if I'd say it's widespread--I'd say it's easy to do, but because it's relatively ineffectual, I don't know how frequently it happens. I.e., you could spend all day going from one polling place to another and voting, and you may be able to cast 15-20 votes. That's not going to have an impact on a statewide election. The costs of being caught tend to outweigh the benefits of casting a few extra votes.
  
  My point isn't so much that it's widespread as much as it's really easy to do and could be an issue if anyone ever gets serious about stealing an election.