So now having proper photo ID to vote is a bad thing?

[senorsheep]

Doesn't quite work like that. When I had to order a replacement NYC birth certificate I believe it cost me around $30 to have it mailed to me and you needed a credit or debit card to process the order; to do it strictly by mail still cost something like $15 and required a notarized statement and a ridiculous processing period of 45 days or something. When your choice is to buy food or medicine or pay for a birth certificate copy-- especially if you don't have the Internet capability to do the search to figure out how to get the thing in the first place or the business hours time to spend a half hour on hold to get that info-- it makes a difference.

I was answering cavebird's suggestion that it could be an access issue vs. a cost issue. If it's a cost issue, I have no problem with a legal mechanism that allows the poor to gather the necessary documents free of charge.

This whole issue is bunk, anyway-- you do realize that when you move your old voter registration can take years to come off of the rolls, right? If you moved in the last five years, the odds are that you have multiple voter registrations. This entire voter fraud thing is crap drummed up by the folks who would like to keep voter turnout low, the Republicans. Sheep may strive as he always does for the "fairness" of spreading the blame, but nationwide that's just not valid in this case. Low turnouts, especially low turnouts amongst the poor and recent immigrants-- the people least likely to have access to documents-- almost always favor the GOP. This entire drive is just another bite at Jim Crow's apple for the people who want to keep voting restricted to those who reliably vote for them, ironic given that once upon a time it was the Dixiecrats who wanted that.

A fine example of the hyper-partisan blather that should not be driving the question of voter identification.

[senorsheep]

If you were born in this country, if you were born in a hospital, if that hospital still exists, if it had remotely reasonable recordkeeping practices, etc.

Sure, like I said, any voter ID law would have to take circumstances like these into consideration and provide sensible alternatives. Surely you agree that could be easily done.

I understand that you want reasonable controls to prevent voter fraud. But if the controls prevent 100 legitimate voters for every instance of deferred fraud, then does that control strengthen or weaken democracy?

Yep, that would be a bad trade-off. And if it prevented 100 fraudulent voters for every one legit voter who went "Aw, screw it, I don't want to go through the hassle of getting my birth certificate," that might not be so bad. I'm pretty sure neither you nor I nor most anyone else knows what that ratio would actually be.

I certainly don't think the Democrats are anti-ID because "voter fraud favors Democrats". I think Democrats are anti-ID because ID requirements, in practice, keep out more Democratic voters than Republican voters. And that's because there are more Democrats who have no need for government issued photo ID in their daily lives, because they use public transportation and don't drive, because they've never left the US, etc. And as we know, people will track down an ID if they need it to, say, get married, but few Americans will jump through a whole lot of hoops to set up their opportunity to vote. Is that a sad commentary on American voters. Yes, sure. But when a rule excludes far more legitimate voters than fraudsters, I think you have to consider whether the "cure" is worse than the "disease", which is why you've seen people talking about the very low incidence of known voter fraud.

Just as the vast majority of legit voters are not out there purposefully committing voting fraud, the vast majority of legit voters - even poor ones - already have legitimate ID's, so the notion that legions of people are going to be disenfranchised seems a little disingenuous to me (but there might be some regional bias there - everybody drives in Colorado). Any voter ID law should account for legitimate socio-economic barriers to getting the ID. I agree that we shouldn't be making people jump through a lot of unnecessary hoops to vote, but acquiring and producing valid identification doesn't strike me as all that unreasonable. I'm guessing that most people who would allow themselves to be thwarted by such a simple requirement probably aren't all that interested in voting, anyway.

[Bob Kohm]

I was answering cavebird's suggestion that it could be an access issue vs. a cost issue. If it's a cost issue, I have no problem with a legal mechanism that allows the poor to gather the necessary documents free of charge.



A fine example of the hyper-partisan blather that should not be driving the question of voter identification.

Just more of the usual reason speaking with you is pointless... when the facts don't fit your narrative you dismiss them. C'est la vie, I tried. It's a shame.

[Hornsby]

This century. Get your facts right, not that it says much.

J

LOL...so, just checking to see how much you want to parse this...better than Clinton?

[senorsheep]

Just more of the usual reason speakign with you is pointless... when the facts don;t fit your narrative you attempt to dismiss them. C'est la vie, i tried.

Yeah, obviously, based on everything I've said here, I'm not trying to be thoughtful at all, I'm just advancing a narrative. Stellar analysis.

If you've read and understood what I've written, I've already acknowledged the GOP's political motive. I'm more interested in the argument than the motive, and they happen to have a pretty good one. And Team Democrat has some reasonable objections. Seems like an issue that could be resolved by two parties capable of thoughtful compromise. I wish we had them.

[B-Fly]

Sure, like I said, any voter ID law would have to take circumstances like these into consideration and provide sensible alternatives. Surely you agree that could be easily done.

I'm not sure how easily. Like Bob, I've recently gone through the process of getting a new driver's license, and the number of different ID's one needs to get the total number of "points" required isn't so easy, particularly if you're from a socio-economic bracket likely not to possess a credit card or passport. It gets back to your birth certificate and social security card, both of which can be difficult to get copies of if you've lost them, particularly without other ID. I assume you're thinking about waiving whatever fees for the poor, but what do you require them to show you to give them the ID in the first instance?

[senorsheep]

I'm not sure how easily. Like Bob, I've recently gone through the process of getting a new driver's license, and the number of different ID's one needs to get the total number of "points" required isn't so easy, particularly if you're from a socio-economic bracket likely not to possess a credit card or passport. It gets back to your birth certificate and social security card, both of which can be difficult to get copies of if you've lost them, particularly without other ID. I assume you're thinking about waiving whatever fees for the poor, but what do you require them to show you to give them the ID in the first instance?

State, federal, and county agencies all have lists of documents they will accept in lieu of lost identification - work ID's, school ID's, insurance cards, medical records, etc. The precedents are already in place - it wouldn't require reinventing the wheel. LOL

If Republicans are guilty of overstating the necessity of a solution, your team is certainly guilty of overstating the difficulty in implementing such a solution.

[Bob Kohm]

Yeah, obviously, based on everything I've said here, I'm not trying to be thoughtful at all, I'm just advancing a narrative. Stellar analysis. \

Always good for a chuckle if not much else...

[heyelander]

Yeah, obviously, based on everything I've said here, I'm not trying to be thoughtful at all, I'm just advancing a narrative. Stellar analysis.

If you've read and understood what I've written, I've already acknowledged the GOP's political motive. I'm more interested in the argument than the motive, and they happen to have a pretty good one. And Team Democrat has some reasonable objections. Seems like an issue that could be resolved by two parties capable of thoughtful compromise. I wish we had them.

You're still talking? I'm pretty sure you've been dismissed.

[senorsheep]

You're still talking? I'm pretty sure you've been dismissed.

It's Return Of The Jedi, I'm Luke Skywalker, and Bhob is Darth Vader. Sometimes I believe that if I just keep drilling, I might be able to reach the free-thinking human being buried deep inside the relentless single-minded partisan cyborg that he's become.

[Erik]

LOL...so, just checking to see how much you want to parse this...better than Clinton?

He thinks Clinton is a rapist.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'm not sure how easily. Like Bob, I've recently gone through the process of getting a new driver's license, and the number of different ID's one needs to get the total number of "points" required isn't so easy, particularly if you're from a socio-economic bracket likely not to possess a credit card or passport. It gets back to your birth certificate and social security card, both of which can be difficult to get copies of if you've lost them, particularly without other ID. I assume you're thinking about waiving whatever fees for the poor, but what do you require them to show you to give them the ID in the first instance?

Agreed,

Though preventing voter fraud is always a good idea, none of the programs in place do so in a manner which a person of my station would consider "easy" It's like any agency in place right now, they make the rules more stringent than they really have to in order to prevent fraud, which I understand, but for those of us NOT looking to abuse the system it makes it hell and almost makes you want to say **** It and stop applying.

These GOP Gotcha videos really amuse me. I wonder how many big time conservatives some liberal hidden cameras could get on record being racist or misogynistic if they went out and tried. Anyone can be made to look bad if you set the situation up just right. Look for the weak link and go for it' Should we judge every program, person and situation in their/it's worse case scenario and then over-react?

Sheep-I hope you're not really saying that these Voter fraud initiatives are non partisan. I've always considered you one of the brightest minds in here. If you truly think these statutes are being put in place with the genuine intention of legitimizing the vote rather than oppressing select groups that vote democrat, I think i'd have to re-evaluate that opinion.

[GwynnInTheHall]

He thinks Clinton is a rapist.

His penis is an oppressor of women.

[Lucky]

It's amazing how many people come into my court with no form of identification (photo or otherwise). When I ask them why haven't they gotten a license, what I hear over and over again is that they've been trying to get their birth certificates. And, even here in 2012, there are a lot of people who do not have a birth certificate at all, having been born at home with a midwife or relative responsible for the birthing procedure.

As someone said, various agencies will accept many forms of identification. There's my problem with some of these new voter ID laws...they require that a specific state-issued ID be presented. If more forms of ID were permitted, it could make a difference.

In 2008 I went to the polls to vote (for myself, as well as various other candidates). I left my wallet at home, so no ID. Fortunately, one of the poll workers recognized me and said "Hey, aren't you the Judge?", so they let me vote. Of course, you have to sign a form, and they compare your signature to the other signatures from previous elections. So, if I wanted to go in there and vote as the guy who lives down the street, I would not only have the ID problem, but I'd have to be able to forge his signature as well.

The only signs of voter suppression I've seen here are shortening the period for early voting and reducing the number of polling places, making it harder to get to the polls to vote. Early voting is a great thing. It used to be that you had to go through the "absentee voter" process, but now you can just go into the County Clerk's office in the weeks before the election and cast your ballot. No waiting in lines on election day, and higher voter turnout.

[senorsheep]

Sheep-I hope you're not really saying that these Voter fraud initiatives are non partisan. I've always considered you one of the brightest minds in here. If you truly think these statutes are being put in place with the genuine intention of legitimizing the vote rather than oppressing select groups that vote democrat, I think i'd have to re-evaluate that opinion.

Sheesh...

Of course Republicans are for voter ID and Democratics are against it - loose enforcement favors Democrats. If the opposite were true, the party positions would be reversed. The issue shouldn't be framed in terms of which political party benefits. It should be framed in terms of 1) Is it the right thing to do? and 2) Is it practical to do?

For the third time... of course The Republican Party pushes for voter ID because stricter enforcement favors them. Just as The Democratic Party opposes voter ID because looser enforcement favors them. The motives are not in question. And are not the issue. The boatload of partisan crap coming from both sides has no bearing on the central questions of 1) Is voter identification as a means of fraud prevention a good idea? 2) Is it necessary? 3) Can it be implemented fairly and practically? I don't think too many people could reasonably argue against #1. You could definitely make reasonable arguments for and against #'s 2 & 3. I rate the necessity as fairly low, but I also think the implementation bar is fairly low in terms of effort and realistic consequences. Is it a pain in the ass to recover lost identification documents? Heck, yes - that is true for rich man, poor man, prince, and pauper. I've already spoken in favor of reducing the financial burden of document recovery for the poor. Is the hassle of the "lost documents" scenario for a small minority a fair tradeoff for ensuring electoral integrity for everyone? I'm on the fence, leaning towards yes, but I'd have to see some specific proposals before coming down firmly on one side or the other.

Now somebody please call me a Jim Crow apologist so my day can be complete...