What about the Photo ID requirent for voting?

1. 80

   joanwzposted 12 years ago

   What about the Photo ID requirent for voting?
   
   One side says it's necessary to prevent voter fraud. The other side argues that it's a form of disenfranchisement along the lines of the poll taxes. Which way do you lean on this issue and why?

   replyreport
2. 69

   LandmarkWealthposted 12 years ago

   The disenfranchisement argument is frankly pathetically weak.  For some time now Federal law has required that you cannot open a bank account without proper ID to prevent money laundering.  Therefore these supposed disenfranchised will not have any place to cash a social security check, welfare check or any other form of monetary social assistance since these agencies do not pay cash.  There is no rational downside to making such a request when you can't get on a plane or open a bank account without ID.  In fact in some cities not having proper ID on you can be a condition for being arrested for vagrancy.  Meanwhile just the other day we had another arrest of a sheriff in West Virginia running for a office on voter fraud charges.   It is not going to totally prevent fraud.  But it is a very reasonable request.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      joanwzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You bring up some excellent points.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Opening a bank account is not equivalent to voting. Moreover, I don't recall ever being requested to show a photo I.D. when opening a bank account. Most of them fall all over themselves to get you to open an account. (Not denying that some banks req)

      replyreport
   3. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It has been Federal AML for more than a decade.  You can not open account without proper ID or the bank is in violation of Federal anti money laundering laws.  Meaning no account ability to deposit.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Whidbeywriterposted 12 years ago

   I totally agree LandmarkWealth, very weak argument they have.   When you have to show an ID for just about anything you want to do to prove who you are, it is silly not to expect that from someone going to the polls to vote.  It would move us in a backward direction if we stop asking for ID.

   replyreport
4. 77

   cathylynn99posted 12 years ago

   the truly weak argument is that these laws are meant to curtail voter fraud. to prevent recurrence of the seven cases of in person voter fraud in PA in the past ten years, over 800,000 registered pennsylvania voters will have to find transportation to a photo license center and most likely have to pay for documents to get the ID. it IS a poll tax. or they just won't vote. as the republican state house majority leader said after he got the bill passed, "we just delivered the state for romney". they are willing to cheat to win.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The cost of ID for those that don't have it is peanuts.  And if they don't get it they can't open the bank out to cash the SS checks.  minnesota had over 100 voter fraud convictions in 2008 election alone.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      L W,
      do you know if the minnesota cases were in person or absentee?
      
      many people can't get to the photo center. in my county it's over  a half hour drive. $10 for  birth certificate and $10 for  ID may seem like peanuts to you, but is not for some.

      replyreport
   3. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If someone is that indigent than they qualify for Gov't asst. So the Gov't asst will more than cover the cost.  Yet they cant get the Gov't asst without the ID because they cant cash the check.  Problem solved.  The form of fraud is not relevant.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Very true. The I.D. efforts are concentrated in battleground states for a GOP political advantage. It's obvious.

      replyreport
   5. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Voter ID has been a topic of discussion all the way back to the 1980's.  This did not just spring up.  And Mccain got more of the supposed disinfranchised elderly senior vote in 2008 than Obama.

      replyreport
   6. 77

      cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      you do not need photo ID to access public benefits.

      replyreport
   7. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You need the ID to cash the check from a public benefit.  State and Federal Social Asst do not pay cash.  And you can't cash the check without ID to open the bank acct. That means no unemployment, Social Security and various other benefits

      replyreport
   8. 77

      cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      they don't send a check. it's direct deposit and the government issues a sort of debit card. you're far removed from the reality of poverty. i'm a social worker. i see these things often. also, i used to bank where they knew me and required no ID.

      replyreport
   9. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Social Security does  issue debit cards. Most states do not for unemployment benefits.   And I have worked in finance for 15 years.  Read the patriot act.  It is a Federal offense to open an account at any Financial Institution without proper ID.

      replyreport
   10. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Lacking a current necessary ID does not mean someone does not have a bank account. I've had 8 different addresses in 3 states since I opened my bank account over a decade ago. And at the time I think I opened it with a student ID.

       replyreport
   11. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Many people have old accts.  Thats not relevant.  Current law reasonably requests proper ID to open an acct.  There was no evidence of an attempt on the president at the convention, yet ID was requird to enter. Is that discrimnatory to the poor ???

       replyreport
   12. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Not relevant? Your whole argument is basically that life is unmanageable without a proper ID. You are just plain wrong. Many people do it all the time. Try having some empathy with their lives rather than assuming you know everything.

       replyreport
   13. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       No the argument is that "going foward" you cannot accomplish these things without proper id.  so there in no reason that voting should not keep up with current changes to legislation.

       replyreport
   14. 77

       cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       that ignores all the folks getting by without what for them is an expensive ID right now. that ignores this election. 25 million people denied the right to vote.

       replyreport
   15. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Your still wrong. You don't seem to have any idea how the world of the poor works. It doesn't go by your rules. + The issue isn't just ID/no ID. The issue is timing. This stuff is coming just before an election because they know it will shrink votes.

       replyreport
   16. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This is not a timing issue. It came up all throug the 80's and 90's and even at one time in the 60's whenJFK got all theChicago dead to vote.  Please dont tell me about poor.i grew up in the poorest area's ofNYC withnothing. If ID wasfree youd opposs

       replyreport
   17. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If it wasn't a timing issue it would be done well in advance of the election to ensure no one's vote was impacted. An organized and massive 11th hour effort is clearly and intentionally DESIGNED for a singular purpose: win by cheating.

       replyreport
   18. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Junkseller, there have numerous proposals for years in many states.  Some of these just recently past.  Considering it takes all of 1 day to get ID and the law was passed several months in advance, while most already have ID that's hardly 11th hour

       replyreport
   19. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       180 bills in 41 states since 2011, much of that in the past 6 months in key states. You are not being fair to the real challenges these restrictions present to people. http://brennan.3cdn.net/f5f28dd844a143d … m6lyhy.pdf

       replyreport
   20. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Again, you can trace this as a controversy to at least the 60's. No shock here.  I have obtained ID in both NY and Florida when I lived there.  It's really not that difficult.  If people with Down Syndrome can do it, the average voter can pull it off

       replyreport
   21. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Do you really expect anyone to accept that how hard you THINK something is or isn't matches the reality of how hard that thing actually is? Did you read the report? Places open one day a month, people without cars more than 10 miles away, etc.

       replyreport
5. 61

   bworthingtonposted 12 years ago

   While the concept of showing ID to participate in the democratic process seems relatively simple, the reality is that the rational behind the imposition of these new laws is disingenuous at best. 
   
   The truth is, in person voter fraud is not a widespread issue.  In fact, voter fraud is easier to commit using absentee ballots than at the actual polls.  The ID requirement doesn't solve that issue.  The lead legislator in Pennsylvania let the cat out the bag when he declared that "This law will give Mitt Romney Pennsylvania in this upcoming election."
   
   The reality is simple.  Many of the individuals who will be adversely affected by this law tend to vote Democratic.  Young people at college will now be required to obtain ID that lists their college address as their permanent address, or they will have to go to their home precinct in order to cast their vote. 
   
   Elderly people who may not have the necessary papers are also at risk of being left out of the process.
   
   While in person voter fraud, if it actually existed, would be a serious problem, the efforts to disenfranchise individuals from participating in the democratic process is as serious an issue that every American should be concerned with.

   replyreport
6. 67

   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

   To anyone who follows the issue it's obvious that the GOP's efforts to impose voter I.D. and other registration and voting requirements in the battleground states has nothing to do with voting fraud and everything to do with making it harder for minorities, the elderly, students and other likely Democratic voters. A number of academic studies show that voter identity fraud is very rare. The Republican Party chairman in Pennsylvania last month when he bragged that the passage of a new voter I.D. law would allow Romney to beat Obama in Pennsylvania.  We should be encouraging, not discouraging, voter turnout.

   replyreport
7. 80

   junksellerposted 12 years ago

   It really doesn't matter what ID's people think others should have. The reality is that LOTS of people do not have the proper ID required by these ID laws. Some estimates are up in the 20-25 million range. The other reality is that the fraud intended to be prevented by these laws (in-person voter fraud) is exceedingly rare. The state of Pennsylvania in a court of law admitted that they didn't have a single verified case of in-person voter fraud EVER taking place in their state. Lots of people will tell you STORIES about in-person voter fraud happening. They are always just stories. Don't accept them. Ask them for legitimate and verifiable proof.
   
   LandmarkWealth, for instance, points out the recent case of fraud in West Virginia. That case, however, involved absentee ballots and had nothing to do with in-person voter fraud.
   
   Even if you could provide a legitimate reason for these laws, they still shouldn't be enacted right before an election. Getting proper ID isn't as easy as people make it sound. Well-to-do people never really seem to understand these types of issues. It isn't an accident that these laws and efforts, which by the way include purging voter rolls, restricting early voting, and making voter registration more difficult, are ALL being enacted months before an election by Republicans. They know that lowered turnout is in their favor and that these measures will lower turnout. Pure and simple this is a way to cheat to victory.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      joanwzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent points.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Again, if your poor then apply for Gov't asst.  The revenue covers the cost of the ID 1000 fold.  You cant cash the gov't aid checks without ID to open a bank acct.   Fraud is Fraud.  This is a very reasonable request.  I got ID when I was poor/

      replyreport
   3. 80

      joanwzposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LandmarkWealth, many of the indigent won't use a bank. If they get welfare checks, they take to one of the check cashing places that frequently won't ask for ID.

      replyreport
   4. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Actually most do require ID.  More so than most places. And even if they didnt the check is more than enough to cover the cost of ID that is renewed for 7-10 years Perhaps we should be more concerned with the attempts inOhio to prevent military votes

      replyreport
   5. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      We should be concerned with attempts to prevent any votes. Obama wasn't trying to restrict military voting in Ohio. He was trying to reinstate those early voting days that the GOP took away from everyone else.

      replyreport
   6. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They filed the suit to block a new state law allowing men and women in uniform to vote up until the Monday right before an election, while the cutoff on early voting for the rest of the public is three days earlier.  How is that reinstatinganything

      replyreport
   7. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, the law in question took away those 3 days from everyone BUT military personnel. That law has been overturned. Those 3 days are now open to everyone. http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf … hio_l.html

      replyreport
   8. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      because the miliary was historically given special treatment as a result of their unpredictable nature of their deployment

      replyreport
   9. 80

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There was no reason to take those days away from anyone (unless you are a Republican and know that those particular votes tend Democratic). That was the point.

      replyreport
   10. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       No the point was there was a time frame set up for everyone on accordance with the law.  Only the military was given special treatment and extra time because of there circumstance.  Not Republicans.

       replyreport
   11. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The point was to expand voting opportunities. That's all. Unless you are opposed to that I don't see the issue here.

       replyreport
   12. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       We don't have unlimited times to vote.  There is one election day.  Concessions can be made under certain circumstances but not just expanding days to everyone all the time.  Why not just hold the 2016 election to while were at it.

       replyreport
   13. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       35 states hold early voting, some of them with periods longer than 30 days. That is the norm, not a concession. The Ohio effort was restoring days taken away by the GOP in an earlier voter suppression effort.

       replyreport
   14. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You assume all this disenfranchisement is somehow republican based.  The rules are the same no matter who you vote for.  It effects everyone equally, so that means each side is equally supressed "supposedly" Or can democrats not follow rules as well.

       replyreport
   15. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       I don't assume anything. Statistically, these efforts all impact Democratic leaning voters more than Republicans. They are less likely to have proper IDs, face greater difficulties in getting them, and are more likely to cast early votes.

       replyreport
   16. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       The ID issue is simply nonense, Aside from that, Somehow Democrats are also less likely to vote because the deadline to vote is changed and anounced to everyone ??? It used to be Seniors were the ones hurt until the polls showed they voted Mccain.

       replyreport
   17. 80

       junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       If you make it harder to vote, fewer people vote. That's wrong regardless of who they vote for.

       replyreport
   18. 77

       cathylynn99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       js,
       
       lw lives in an alternate reality. don't waste your time arguing with him.
       
       my parting comment: folks with downs syndrome have social workers help them get their ID's. lw's comment about that borders on abuse.

       replyreport
   19. 69

       LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Yes i live in an alternate reality even though I come from poverty that few americans have ever seen.  By the way my nephew has Down Syndrome and he works and has ID and no social worker took him.  He is quite self sufficient with less excuses.

       replyreport
8. 61

   web-marketersposted 12 years ago

   I didn't think this is an issue at all since I.D.'s are meant to protect you from identity fraud and theft. If this is an issue about disenfranchisement I don't think they will just come out with cheap idea like this. It is not trivial that some citizens didn't have the opportunity to vote because of this and it's sad. It's sad because these people doesn't know how to value ID. If you don't have any families nor relatives I don't think you'll gonna survive without ID. Bottom-line is, it's not about disenfranchisement, this is about your identity.

   replyreport