Missouri considers requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote

[BrainGlutton]

Following the recent SCOTUS decision upholding Indiana's voter-ID law, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=465853) Missouri is ready to up the ante. Story here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/us/politics/12vote.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

Sponsors of the amendment — which requires the approval of voters to go into effect, possibly in an August referendum — say it is part of an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from affecting the political process. Critics say the measure could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legal residents who would find it difficult to prove their citizenship.

Voting experts say the Missouri amendment represents the next logical step for those who have supported stronger voter ID requirements and the next battleground in how elections are conducted. Similar measures requiring proof of citizenship are being considered in at least 19 state legislatures. Bills in Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Carolina have strong support. But only in Missouri does the requirement have a chance of taking effect before the presidential election.

In Arizona, the only state that requires proof of citizenship to register to vote, more than 38,000 voter registration applications have been thrown out since the state adopted its measure in 2004. That number was included in election data obtained through a lawsuit filed by voting rights advocates and provided to The New York Times. More than 70 percent of those registrations came from people who stated under oath that they were born in the United States, the data showed.

When I've registered to vote I've never had to prove my citizenship beyond swearing to it. I suppose I could -- because I've got a copy of my birth certificate in a file at home. Do you?

[KSO]

I'm in Connecticut and am always asked for my driver's license.

ETA: I do have a copy of my birth certificate at home.

[BrainGlutton]

I'm in Connecticut and am always asked for my driver's license.

But noncitizens can get those.

[Giles]

But noncitizens can get those.
Yes -- I've had an Ohio driver's license for 8 years, along with a social security number, but I'm not a US citizen.

[DrDeth]

AFAIK, nothing proves citizenship. Not even a birt cert, although it's certainly good for almost all circumstances.

[Voyager]

I guess the IDs weren't doing a good enough job disenfranchising minority Democratic voters.

Illegal immigrants in general are petrified about getting caught and returned. There is a real problem getting them signed up even for stuff they are allowed to get since they are so scared of the government. Thinking that there is going to be a problem with them marching up and showing id to vote is absurd.

Now, all the poor people who jet off to France for the summer won't have a problem with this law, but I suspect that there are a few US citizens who just haven't had time for that vacation and who might have misplaced their birth certificate in ten moves or so. I'm sure lots and lots of them will be thrilled to file for a new copy just to be able to vote.

I can't imagine why Republicans would want to keep the people who have benefited so greatly over the last seven years from the trickle down from the Bush tax cuts from voting, though, so all hail this grand effort at protecting our polling places, no matter how many poor voters it will cost.

[BrainGlutton]

AFAIK, nothing proves citizenship. Not even a birt cert, although it's certainly good for almost all circumstances.

Naturalization papers prove citizenship.

[DrDeth]

Naturalization papers prove citizenship.

No, they prove you were a citizen at one time. Can't you repudiate your US citizenship? Can Naturalized citizens have their Naturalization revoked?

[sugar and spice]

AFAIK, nothing proves citizenship. Not even a birt cert, although it's certainly good for almost all circumstances. :confused: A birth certificate can show that so-and-so was born on US soil, and is thus a US citizen, a drivers license shows that the person standing in front of you is the same person on the birth certificate. IIRC this is also sufficient to get a US passport, which I has always assumed was proof citizenship.

[BrainGlutton]

All this would be sooooo much simpler if we had that national ID card (one color for citizens, another for legal residents) . . .

[elucidator]

Platinum for Preferred Citizens, of course.

[Giles]

:confused: A birth certificate can show that so-and-so was born on US soil, and is thus a US citizen, a drivers license shows that the person standing in front of you is the same person on the birth certificate. IIRC this is also sufficient to get a US passport, which I has always assumed was proof citizenship.
No, a birth certificate proves that you were born a US citizen, not that you still are one. Some countries require you to give up your previous citizenship in order to be naturalised, so a small number of people born US citizens are no longer US citizens. (There are a few other ways that yoiu can lose US citizenship, but that would be the commonest reason).

Having a US passport is better proof, but, of course, a lot of US citizens don't have passports.

[GaryM]

Platinum for Preferred Citizens, of course.

With a picture of kittens on it, but not war kittens!

[Ravenman]

I would loooooove to see this go to court and have the law thrown out because there really isn't a reliable way to demonstrate citizenship. I have no clue where my birth certificate is, and as has been stated, it only shows that I was born in the US lo those decades ago.

Maybe I should rely on my paperwork showing the security clearance I hold? That's probably my best proof of citizenship, since it is more recent than my passport, and very few would know what to make of it.

If the people of Arizona and perhaps Missouri are so concerned about tracking citizenship, perhaps they should support a national ID card. But seeing as how there seems to be a lot of overlap between the "get the immigrants out" camp and the "national IDs are the first step towards dictatorship" folks, I bet that wouldn't be too popular of a suggestion.

(Note: I think a national ID card is a dumb, purposeless idea.)

[sugar and spice]

No, a birth certificate proves that you were born a US citizen, not that you still are one. Some countries require you to give up your previous citizenship in order to be naturalised, so a small number of people born US citizens are no longer US citizens. (There are a few other ways that yoiu can lose US citizenship, but that would be the commonest reason).Thanks for clarifying.Having a US passport is better proof, but, of course, a lot of US citizens don't have passports. Yes, of course not everyone has a passport, I was only trying to give a counterexample to the statement that 'nothing' proves citizenship. Can I ask why you say 'better'? When would a holder of a passport not be a citizen? I would assume that renouncing citizenship also requires turning in your passport.

What I should have said is this: we have a system in place to verify citizenship in order to issue passports, can't we apply the same system to voter registration? Don't get me wrong, I agree that doing so would be expensive and would deter voters in a way that favors one party in particular. But this is different than saying that citizenship can not be verified at all.

[Giles]

Can I ask why you say 'better'? When would a holder of a passport not be a citizen? I would assume that renouncing citizenship also requires turning in your passport.
Well, no system is foolproof. A former US citizen could just lie on the passport application, and not tell the nearest US consulate/embassy that they have lost their citizenship, and there's be a good chance that they could get away with it. But we're talking about a very small number of people here. Most of the countries that US citizens are likely to emigrate to and become citizens of do allow dual citizenship (e.g., Canada, Australia, the U.K.).

[BrainGlutton]

Why don't they just set up the necessary equipment to scan the citizens' implanted chips?!

[Voyager]

They can set up a non-citizen watch list at all polling places. Of course this means that Ted Kennedy wouldn't be able to vote...

[DanBlather]

Can I ask why you say 'better'? When would a holder of a passport not be a citizen? I would assume that renouncing citizenship also requires turning in your passport.If I became a citizen of Canada why would they ask for my US passport?

[Bricker]

AFAIK, nothing proves citizenship. Not even a birt cert, although it's certainly good for almost all circumstances.

It depends on what you mean by "proves."

Nothing proves global warming, but the evidence is strong enough that it makes sense to take it reasonably seriously. Equally so, it doesn't make sense to shut down every coal- and oil-fired electrical generation station in the country tomorrow based on the evidence we have now.

It's even so with citizenship. Nothing proves it to 100% certainty, true -- but different sets of evidence will provide different degrees of certainty. We can ask the prospective voter. We can require him to swear to it. We can examine documents that show citizenship. We can conduct a Top Secret-type background investigation on every voter.

All of these steps will produce evidence of varying certitude. What's the right level of certainty for this question?

[spazattak]

This is strange. The Missouri Supreme Court has already stricken down (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/16/america/NA_GEN_US_Missouri_Voter_Identification.php) a voter-ID law. I suppose they're trying another route now - going after registration instead of identification at the polls.

[sugar and spice]

If I became a citizen of Canada why would they ask for my US passport? I didn't say they would, I was referring to the act of actively renouncing US citizenship, as brought up by Giles, which is not the same as holding dual citizenship.

ETA: oops: renounce, not denounce.

[BrainGlutton]

It depends on what you mean by "proves."

Nothing proves global warming, but the evidence is strong enough that it makes sense to take it reasonably seriously. Equally so, it doesn't make sense to shut down every coal- and oil-fired electrical generation station in the country tomorrow based on the evidence we have now.

It's even so with citizenship. Nothing proves it to 100% certainty, true -- but different sets of evidence will provide different degrees of certainty. We can ask the prospective voter. We can require him to swear to it. We can examine documents that show citizenship. We can conduct a Top Secret-type background investigation on every voter.

:confused: You can't compare scientific proof of theories with legal proof of legal status. Apples and altar boys.

[RickJay]

No, a birth certificate proves that you were born a US citizen, not that you still are one. Some countries require you to give up your previous citizenship in order to be naturalised, so a small number of people born US citizens are no longer US citizens. (There are a few other ways that yoiu can lose US citizenship, but that would be the commonest reason).
I think Missouri's new law is stupid, but I have to say that this isn't a very strong objection. The number of people who were born U.S. citizens and aren't any longer is trivially small - just becoming a citizen of another country does not remove U.S. citizenship - and would of course consist almost entirely of people who don't live in the United States anymore. The miniscule number of people who were born in the United States, then renounced their U.S. citizenship, and then moved to Missouri and would try to vote illegally is probably about 0, or close to it.

The purpose of the law, clearly, is to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, and that purpose WOULD largely be served by asking to see a birth certificate.

Whether Missouri has a large-scale problem with illegal immigrants voting that this would help, without doing even more harm to the democratic process, I don't know, though I doubt it.

If I became a citizen of Canada why would I ask for my passport?
Of course, if an American became a citizen of Canada, he or she would still be a citizen of the United States. MY best friend is a born American, in New Jersey. He moved to Canada as a child, became a Canadian citizen in 1991, and moved to California in 1998 to work for a company there. He is now a citizen of both countries; when he goes to Canada he shows his citizenship card, and when he goes back to the USA he pulls out his American passport.

That's going to be true of most people who were born in the USA, and became citizens elsewhere.

[Bricker]

:confused: You can't compare scientific proof of theories with legal proof of legal status. Apples and altar boys.

Sure you can. The principle is precisely the same; the application may, but doesn't have to, fail because of lack of rigor.

In other words, when we discuss global warming, we usually say something like, "We know to a 90% certainty that humans are causing a warming of the climate." So we can then make decisions based on that 90% certainty.

In criminal law, we say a person is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." This isn't the same as "100% certain." It's enough certainty to eliminate all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, as far as we know.

We use a lesser standard to rule against someone in a civil claim - "preponderance of the evidence." We are more willing to subject someone to a civil finding and take away some of his money than we are to imprison him.

The same kind of calculations need to apply here. We can't ever be 100% certain -- so should we be certain of citizenship beyond a reasonable doubt? 90% certain? 51% certain (preponderance of the evidence). Some other standard?

[BrainGlutton]

The same kind of calculations need to apply here. We can't ever be 100% certain -- so should we be certain of citizenship beyond a reasonable doubt? 90% certain? 51% certain (preponderance of the evidence). Some other standard?

A court of law is set up to make those kinds of determinations. An elections office is not.

[RickJay]

A court of law is set up to make those kinds of determinations. An elections office is not.
Well, of course it is. They currently require a mild proof of citizenship - any documented evidence you live there. The legislature is proposing making the evidentiary requirements much stricter, but they're not inventing the idea of the elections office asking for SOME form of ID.

I couldn't vote in Missouri, because I couldn't provide any evidence I lived there.

You're getting a little extreme in your refusal to accept Bricker's point here; there's not an industrialized democracy in the world that doesn't require some evidence you live in the place you're voting. Here in Canada you have to have something on you that proves who you are; it can be something simple, like a driver's license; you cna use a cable bill or something that's not personal ID only if you're already registered, but that still constitutes evidence you're a resident. It's EVIDENCE all the same.

The question here is not whether the Mossouri proposal newly introduces the idea of voter identification, because it doesn't. The salient question, I think, is whether it jacks up the stringency of identification needed so high that the cons outweigh the pros.

[Bricker]

A court of law is set up to make those kinds of determinations. An elections office is not.

OK. I don't accept that assertion, but assuming I did, what of it?

We may reasonably decide that showing some documentary evidence of citizenship from an approved list of such documents suffices, and then merely require that the elections office check that evidence. Then the role of discretion at the elections office vanishes.

[mlees]

Hmm. It seems a little messed up that they are changing the voter registration requirements in the middle of a major election cycle...

When I've registered to vote I've never had to prove my citizenship beyond swearing to it. I suppose I could -- because I've got a copy of my birth certificate in a file at home. Do you?

Yes. See my post #116 in your linked thread.

[BrainGlutton]

Hmm. It seems a little messed up that they are changing the voter registration requirements in the middle of a major election cycle...

Yes, it does, doesn't it?

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

My birth cert. is somewhere I couldn't name right now, but I could probably find it. It is also badly faded and kid of falling apart. It is also document that just about anyone could easily forge.

Mrs. Murdoch is a naturalized citizen who will cast her first vote for president this fall. She must have some kind of papers somewhere, maybe next to my birth certificate. She has an accent so she could be more seriously challenged by such a maneuver than me.

My mother-in-law is also a citizen, but if she had to jump through this hurdle she simply wouldn't vote. No chance. It would be just too confusing for her and she retains a mistrust of authorities from the old country. And that I suspect is the real objective of these measures, to reduce the vote in a slanted way.

[BrainGlutton]

With a picture of kittens on it, but not war kittens!

MARC ANTONY: Cry "Kerfuffle!" And let slip the kits of war!

[wring]

I've been working around this whole ID problem for the past 30 years - working w/offenders, we get the gamut of issues w/birth certificates. Problem is that 30/40 years ago folks didn't use them for much of anything, so lots of folks were casual about it - everything from "my dad left and my step father raised me, so we just started using my step fathers name, never adopted us officially..." to the guy whose mom never told him where he was born (that's happened at least twice now), guy who was adopted by US service personnel in Germany, and my personal favorite was the woman who was born at home, the midwife registered the birth several days later and picked the wrong gender to put on it.

as for me, because I've seen what a pain in the arse it is to come up with the stuff again, I've got at least 2 copies of my DL around, and several other copies of everything else I need to get it.

[Ravenman]

We may reasonably decide that showing some documentary evidence of citizenship from an approved list of such documents suffices, and then merely require that the elections office check that evidence. Aside from the musings of what could constitute evidence of citizenship, we don't currently have a government system that is too involved with questions of citizenship. Our systems right now are targeted more toward establishing identity, not nationality, since the overwhelming number of us rely on drivers licenses or state-issued ID cards which generally have no relationship to citizenship at all.

So what do we have in the way of papers to establish citizenship? Birth certificates, passports, and Social Security cards are the only common documents I can think of. I'd say that a reasonably large minority of people don't have their original birth certificate, I believe I've seen that only one in five Americans have a passport, and forged Social Security cards are routinely used for illegal immigrants to get legit jobs.

So at this time, our best options for having Americans comply with this proposed restriction on their right to vote are two documents which perhaps millions of Americans have neither; or one document that is so routinely forged that the people who are intended to be excluded from the electoral process (that is, illegal immigrants) probably have one anyway. Uhh... remind me what problem this is supposed to solve?

When Republicans swept into Congress in 1994, they complained a lot about the Feds putting unfunded mandates on states, sticking them with finding a way to comply with Federal laws without actually providing the states a means to effectively do so. These laws strike me as an unfunded mandate on people: foisting the burden of compliance onto individuals, when it is really the state (or the Feds) that ought to be providing the means to readily verify citizenship.

[John Mace]

If citizenship can't be proven, then how do I convince the INS to release me if they detain me as being in the country illegally? And if you can't prove citizenship, then how does the INS prove non-citizenship in cases where people are detained and deported?

[BrainGlutton]

If citizenship can't be proven, then how do I convince the INS to release me if they detain me as being in the country illegally?

Good question. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_in_East_L.A.)

[Giles]

If citizenship can't be proven, then how do I convince the INS to release me if they detain me as being in the country illegally? And if you can't prove citizenship, then how does the INS prove non-citizenship in cases where people are detained and deported?
Aliens are required to carry their passport, or their green card if they are a permanent resident. However, I'm not aware of any document that US citizens are required to carry with them at all times.

(And the other problem is finding a country to deport you to: generally, other countries will only accept their own citizens as deportees from somewhere else. So if a US citizen is caught by the US immigration folk, and can't prove they are a citizen, they could be detained by the federal government indefinitely, with nowhere to be deported to.)

[John Mace]

Aliens are required to carry their passport, or their green card if they are a permanent resident.
But if I'm a citizen, I don't have a green card. If the INS thinks I'm an alien, then how do I convince them I'm not?

However, I'm not aware of any document that US citizens are required to carry with them at all times.
Nor am I. I'm confident there isn't any.

(And the other problem is finding a country to deport you to: generally, other countries will only accept their own citizens as deportees from somewhere else. So if a US citizen is caught by the US immigration folk, and can't prove they are a citizen, they could be detained by the federal government indefinitely, with nowhere to be deported to.)
Kinda like Tom Hanks in that movie "Terminal"? (I never saw it, but I seem to recall the plot involved some such case.)

But the point I'm trying to make is that, as Bricker said, surely there is some level of "proof" that can established as part of the law that would be acceptable. We needn't re-invent the wheel here.

[BrainGlutton]

Kinda like Tom Hanks in that movie "Terminal"? (I never saw it, but I seem to recall the plot involved some such case.)

Happens in real life too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri)

[John Mace]

Happens in real life too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri)

Interesting:

Nasseri was reportedly the inspiration behind the 2004 movie The Terminal; however, neither publicity materials, nor the DVD "special features" nor the film's website mentions Nasseri's plight as an inspiration for the film.

[Bricker]

Aside from the musings of what could constitute evidence of citizenship, we don't currently have a government system that is too involved with questions of citizenship. Our systems right now are targeted more toward establishing identity, not nationality, since the overwhelming number of us rely on drivers licenses or state-issued ID cards which generally have no relationship to citizenship at all.

I disagree. Strongly.

In order to work, you must provide proof of eligibility. This means that every time you get a new job, you have to show that you're either a US citizen or a legal resident permitted to work here. We have an entire infrastructure dedicated to this point..


So what do we have in the way of papers to establish citizenship? Birth certificates, passports, and Social Security cards are the only common documents I can think of. I'd say that a reasonably large minority of people don't have their original birth certificate, I believe I've seen that only one in five Americans have a passport, and forged Social Security cards are routinely used for illegal immigrants to get legit jobs.


That last argument goes to the strength of the evidence, not its existence.

[John Mace]

If you don't have a birth certificate, you can usually get one from the state where you were born. I had to do that a few years ago-- it was very simple.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Question: why wouldn't a social security card + driver's license be enough? Isn't this, plus a driver's license, what's used to document citizenship for getting a new job?

In answer to Bricker's question about what level of certainty we need to use for this issue, I'd say it depends on how big the problem is. First off, do we know of any election in, say, the past 50 years in which illegal votes cast by noncitizens changed the election's outcome? If we don't know of a single example in which this is even likely to have been the case, I'd say the problem is negligible, and any solution to the problem must have no more than negligible disadvantages.

A disenfranchised citizen is worse than an enfranchized noncitizen, IMO: the former alienates someone from the system and clearly denies them a right, whereas the latter only *risks* an overturned election. I'd much rather enfranchise ten noncitizens incorrectly than disenfranchize one citizen incorrectly; the risk is much greater in the latter case.

If there are multiple examples of elections being unfairly decided by illegally cast votes from noncitizens, then it's worth setting up serious measures to prevent that occurring in the future. If there are no examples of that, then this smacks of pandering to the xenophobic vote with a symbolic but useless action with the primary real-world effect of disenfranchizing those without the means to obtain the documents of verification.

Daniel

[BrainGlutton]

If you don't have a birth certificate, you can usually get one from the state where you were born. I had to do that a few years ago-- it was very simple.

But try doing it when you just remembered, or just found out it's necessary, and registration for the next election closes out in two days.

[BrainGlutton]

Question: why wouldn't a social security card + driver's license be enough? Isn't this, plus a driver's license, what's used to document citizenship for getting a new job?

A noncitizen can get either.

I don't know how (or even, whether) employers use SS cards and DLs to check appliants' citizenship status, but if there is a way to do it, the election offices should be able to do the same. The practical question is whether they can do it quickly -- i.e., quickly enough to keep from holding up the line.

[John Mace]

A noncitizen can get either.

I don't know how (or even, whether) employers use SS cards and DLs to check appliants' citizenship status, but if there is a way to do it, the election offices should be able to do the same.
Do they actually check citizen status? What they have to do is check the name against the SS#, and then assume that the SS# was not given to an illegal alien. I guess they also have to check that the SS# isn't also being used somewhere else.

[Bricker]

A disenfranchised citizen is worse than an enfranchized noncitizen, IMO: the former alienates someone from the system and clearly denies them a right, whereas the latter only *risks* an overturned election. I'd much rather enfranchise ten noncitizens incorrectly than disenfranchize one citizen incorrectly; the risk is much greater in the latter case.

I disagree. Ten illegal votes weigh ten times as much as one legitimate vote. Votes are fungible; once cast, they are all of equal weight.


If there are multiple examples of elections being unfairly decided by illegally cast votes from noncitizens, then it's worth setting up serious measures to prevent that occurring in the future. If there are no examples of that, then this smacks of pandering to the xenophobic vote with a symbolic but useless action with the primary real-world effect of disenfranchizing those without the means to obtain the documents of verification.


Let's turn your standard around: if there are multiple examples of elections results being different because legitimate voters were denied their ballots, then it's worth setting up serious measures to prevent that ocurring in the future.

Not so palatable now?

[DrDeth]

It depends on what you mean by "proves."

It's even so with citizenship. Nothing proves it to 100% certainty, true -- but different sets of evidence will provide different degrees of certainty. We can ask the prospective voter. We can require him to swear to it. We can examine documents that show citizenship. We can conduct a Top Secret-type background investigation on every voter.

All of these steps will produce evidence of varying certitude. What's the right level of certainty for this question?

Like I said a birth cert = "it's certainly good for almost all circumstances". We agree it's not quite 100%, but it'll work. Shy of a Top-Secret BI as you mentioned, it's what we'll have to live with. The current administration is trying to push Passports for everyone. :dubious:

[ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness]

Do they actually check citizen status? What they have to do is check the name against the SS#, and then assume that the SS# was not given to an illegal alien. I guess they also have to check that the SS# isn't also being used somewhere else.
SS# isn't enough to prove citizenship. Non-resident aliens can legally get a SS# (http://www.ssa.gov/ss5doc/ss5doctext.htm). SS# means you're eligible to work in the US, which is why employers accept them. Doesn't mean you're eligible to vote.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I disagree. Ten illegal votes weigh ten times as much as one legitimate vote. Votes are fungible; once cast, they are all of equal weight.
Yes, votes are fungible, but experiencing the right to vote is not. Being denied a vote is a much worse harm than being allowed to vote next to someone who is allowed illegitimately to vote. Do you disagree? Or do you think that experiencing the right to vote is a negligible societal good?

Let's turn your standard around: if there are multiple examples of elections results being different because legitimate voters were denied their ballots, then it's worth setting up serious measures to prevent that ocurring in the future.

Not so palatable now?
Ummm....I'm really not sure what you're saying. I absolutely think that it's worth setting up serious measure to prevent "that" (i.e., the denial of ballots to legitimate voters) from occurring in the future. That's totally palatable to me. Did "that" refer to some other antecedent?

If you're suggesting that, because votes are fungible, your example ought to justify measures to prevent illegal votes, that argument certainly doesn't follow, any more than it follows that it justifies measures to prevent ballots from breeding and multiplying in the ballot box. Measures are only necessary to prevent harms that have a serious chance of occurring, not to prevent harms that are mathematically equivalent to harms that have a serious chance of occurring.

Daniel

[JRDelirious]

Employers are required to get your SSN and copies of a government-issued ID to verify that you are eligible to work, under the assumption that a vast majority of people with a valid document is indeed an eligible worker (citizen or noncitizen), or that at least, is someone who has put enough thought into creating and maintaining a legal identity that we may as well retain payroll taxes for his effort until he gets caught ;)

And that is one of the things with ID-checking voter registration/voting itself; we KNOW it's not foolproof, but we do want to create a semblance of you bothering to clear some procedural requirement slightly greater than occupying space and breathing. The notion being that most people who have an interest in avoiding contact with The Man will avoid this form of contact too.

When I registered as a voter, I was required to provide an official ID plus my birth certificate. This does not prove I did not resign my citizenship the day before, but how many people who do that try to vote? A thousandth of a percent of the population?

Opponents say that requiring verification of identity (at voting) or citizenship (at registration) is onerous for a large number of people, specially in the underclass. But ... I've worked elections and registrations with some poor rural communities, semiliterate senior citizens, recently naturalized immigrants, etc. Y'know what? They bother to get their papers in order. Because they want to vote. Heck, for the very old country folk who do not have BC's we'll take parish records of their christenings instead if need be.

Maybe it's just a cultural/"way we've always done it" issue: around here it's relatively easy to get your hands on your birth certificate; and your voter reg card IS a state-issued photo-ID, given to you free of charge. I know that stateside, it can be a more complicated process to get your papers and most official ID is not available for free.

Which is what makes me wonder: if I came up with a way to establish ID check for voting and/or citizenship check for registration AND a way to PAY for it and streamline the process so it's not onerous to the voter... would proponents and oponents still be adamant in their respective positions?

[tetranz]

Getting a bit OT but in New Zealand we allow permanent resident non-citizens to vote. I wonder how common that is around the world. I think in the USA, even local town elections are citizens only.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Which is what makes me wonder: if I came up with a way to establish ID check for voting and/or citizenship check for registration AND a way to PAY for it and streamline the process so it's not onerous to the voter... would proponents and oponents still be adamant in their respective positions?
If it's truly not onerous, then no, I wouldn't be at all adamant. My position is that more people voting is good for the health of a participatory system of government: it involves people in their society, makes them feel responsible for what happens, and I *want* that. Any hurdles to voting ought to be done for a reason, and the strength of the reason ought to be commensurate with the inconvenience of the hurdle.

A hurdle so trivial that it doesn't stop anyone from voting is no problem at all to me. A hurdle that stops a single person from voting needs to have a clear reason for existing. If you can't show me that clear reason, the hurdle ought not exist.

My suspicion is that vanishingly few undocumented folks try to vote: folks without documentation generally try to avoid contact with the state as much as possible, and this would seem an absurd risk to most of them. If there's a problem, then sure, let's see it. But a solution in search of a problem smacks, as I said before, of pandering to xenophobes.

Daniel

[Ravenman]

In order to work, you must provide proof of eligibility. . . . That last argument goes to the strength of the evidence, not its existence.So the goal of laws having people prove citizenship is basically, in the eyes of the proponents, an attempt to avoid having our elections tainted by the illegal aliens who might obtain fraudulent identification in order to cast a vote.

But at the same time, we know that the employment verification system is routinely flummoxed by illegal aliens who hold papers that show they are in this country legally.

If one is attempting to design a system to increase confidence in our voter rolls, relying on the same documentation that is used to fool our employment verification system on a routine basis -- while holding out the possibility for legitimate citizens to have a constitutional right abrogated for lack of proper paperwork -- is a foolish plan.

If Missouri wants to verify the citizenship of its voters, Missouri should work to find a way to have its bureaucracy work with the Federal government, which certainly has some process in place to determine eligibility for Social Security cards and passports. Shifting the responsibility to each voter to prove citizenship is an unreliable delegation of what should be a state responsibility. I'm not hearing anyone doubt that the proposed system could limit the access of some citizens to the polling booth, nor that the current methods of verification of nationality are an effective barrier to other activities, namely, illegal aliens getting jobs with bogus documentation.

Do we know that non-citizens voting in our elections is a real problem? I'm not sure that anyone has identified a specific case where it has shown to be anything more than a theoretical (yet reasonable) problem. Do we know that legitimate voters being turned away from the polls is a problem? Absolutely we know that. While trying not to lower this discussion to the typical Bush-bash fest, I think one must acknowledge that a very significant legitimate registered voters were unfairly turned away from the polls in Florida in 2000, to cite one clear example.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I think one must acknowledge that a very significant legitimate registered voters were unfairly turned away from the polls in Florida in 2000, to cite one clear example.
Not only that, but also many Americans believe--with defensible reasons--that had this not occurred, we'd have had a different president the last 8 years. Turning legitimate voters away from the ballot box seriously undermines confidence in our democracy.

If we're going to raise the bar rather than lower it, we need to see that the harm it prevents outweighs the harm it'll cause.

Daniel

[Algher]

Not only that, but also many Americans believe--with defensible reasons--that had this not occurred, we'd have had a different president the last 8 years. Turning legitimate voters away from the ballot box seriously undermines confidence in our democracy.

If we're going to raise the bar rather than lower it, we need to see that the harm it prevents outweighs the harm it'll cause.

Daniel

The problem is that we have not bothered examing elections to see how many voters were legit. It only comes into notice when there is a really tight election. If you look into the election of Loretta Sanchez, Congress found 624 votes cast by illegals, and 4,700 questionable registrations. Illegals DO vote sometimes. Now, the Republicans in Congress did not think that it was enough votes to swayed the election, so Sanchez was seated over B-1 Bob Dornan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Sanchez

However, there were a lot of voters in that district who felt that their vote was cancelled out by the votes of non-citizens. That is the type of concern that some are trying to address with the photo ID and proof of citizenship.

Oh - and I have my birth cert (I had to get a new one from the US State Dept), I have birt certs for my kids, all of our Social Security cards, and passports for everyone.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The problem is that we have not bothered examing elections to see how many voters were legit. It only comes into notice when there is a really tight election. If you look into the election of Loretta Sanchez, Congress found 624 votes cast by illegals, and 4,700 questionable registrations. Illegals DO vote sometimes. Now, the Republicans in Congress did not think that it was enough votes to swayed the election, so Sanchez was seated over B-1 Bob Dornan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Sanchez

However, there were a lot of voters in that district who felt that their vote was cancelled out by the votes of non-citizens. That is the type of concern that some are trying to address with the photo ID and proof of citizenship.
See, that's exactly the sort of evidence I'm talking about. That's a serious concern, and even though the Republicans themselves didn't see the number of illegally-cast votes as significant to the election's outcome, it does undermine democracy to have such situations.

I wonder whether there are other measures that could work. For example, those 624 votes cast illegally: what happened to them? Were these cases pursued diligently, and were the criminals prosecuted fully? I'd really like to see cases of actual election fraud (including both this and illegal voter suppression cases) prosecuted as major crimes, at least equal to the prosecution of possession of hard drugs.
Oh - and I have my birth cert (I had to get a new one from the US State Dept), I have birt certs for my kids, all of our Social Security cards, and passports for everyone.
Great. So? Not everyone has all these things, and the question is whether obtaining any of them presents a barrier to voting for some people. Voting IMO ought to be as painless as possible, so that folks with very little discretionary time in their lives can still do it.

Daniel

[Algher]

Great. So? Not everyone has all these things, and the question is whether obtaining any of them presents a barrier to voting for some people. Voting IMO ought to be as painless as possible, so that folks with very little discretionary time in their lives can still do it.

Daniel

Time - I am not concerned about that. If you do not have the discretionary time to get your paperwork, how the hell do you have the time to educate yourself on the issues on the ballot?

Now - the cost and timeFRAME to get the necessary documents IS an issue. Passports are not free, nor are copies of your birth certificate. I don't know about getting Social Security cards. For the truly indigent, there should be a way to get your ID run without spending any direct funds. Once these laws are passed there should also be enough time in the cycle to aquire the documents as well (e.g. you can't pass an ID law one week before an election that requires the ID).

[Oslo Ostragoth]

I am almost certainly going to regret asking this, but, no pain, no gain.

How could anyone possibly object to requirements that:

prospective voters prove (1)who they are, and (2)that they are eligible to vote?

[DanBlather]

I am almost certainly going to regret asking this, but, no pain, no gain.

How could anyone possibly object to requirements that:

prospective voters prove (1)who they are, and (2)that they are eligible to vote?If the requirement was that new voters registering had to show proof of citizenship that would be OK. But for someone who has been registered for years, it adds a barrier to exercising their most fundamental right in a Democracy.

Many people do not have easy access to their birth certificates, do not have a drivers license, or do not have a passport. If you are old, poor, or disabled it may be a real pain to figure out how to get proper ID. Imagine you don't have internet access and don't have a car and live out in the country someplace: where do you start?

Now if the govt was going to make it easy for people by sending around mobile registration vans and helping people get the required documentation that would be one thing, but the people that proposed and passed these laws did them in full knowledge that they would disproportionally disenfranchise poor and minority voters.

[T_SQUARE]

Nitpick: It is possible to have a US passport and not be a citizen of the US if you are from American Samoa.

Not that too many folks in this catagory are trying to sneak into Missouri and vote, though I think Missouri did once have some trouble with some Kansans trying to sneak in and vote.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Time - I am not concerned about that. If you do not have the discretionary time to get your paperwork, how the hell do you have the time to educate yourself on the issues on the ballot?
This is a non sequitur. Folks can get educated by talking to co-workers, or by listening to the radio on the way to and from work, or by having the television on in the background as they make their kids' lunches, or by deciding that one party is the right one for them and voting a party ticket, or by any other number of ways. It has nothing to do with how much time it takes to get the paperwork.

It comes down to this: you're proposing a hurdle to voting, and it is (I hope) uncontroversial that any hurdle to voting will lower the number of voters to some degree. To persuade me that the hurdle is necessary, you must show that it's a lesser evil than the evil the hurdle prevents, AND that there's no lesser hurdle that would prevent the same evil.

The New York Times had a great editorial on this issue yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html). Why do I call it "great"? Because it basically reiterated the arguments I'd already made in this thread :).

There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.

There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth.

...

The imposition of harsh new requirements to vote has become a partisan issue, but it should not be. These rules are an assault on democracy itself. The current conservative Supreme Court showed last month, in its ruling upholding the Indiana ID law, that it will not perform its historical role of protecting voters. That puts the burden on state legislators, governors, state courts and ordinary citizens to ensure that the right to vote is not taken away for partisan political gain.


Daniel

[Oslo Ostragoth]

Many people do not have easy access to their birth certificates,There are people who don't know where they were born? do not have a drivers license,DMV's will issue ID cards that look like drivers' licenses.

[DanBlather]

There are people who don't know where they were born?Some probably, but more importantly they may not know the address of the County Clerk's office in another state, or want to spend money on long distance calls while being put on hold and transferred among half a dozen departments.DMV's will issue ID cards that look like drivers' licenses.Yes, all you need to do is figure out how to drag your 80 year old ass down to the DMV. Do you take the $45 cab ride, public transportation (hah! in most of the US), or maybe they can just call you.

[spazattak]

There are people who don't know where they were born?
Sometimes (ever hear of adoption?)- more frequently though there are people who's birth certificates just don't exist. Anecdotally, I know a few people under these exact circumstances.
DMV's will issue ID cards that look like drivers' licenses.
In Missouri, it's not free - thus it's a form of poll tax.

[Algher]

This is a non sequitur. Folks can get educated by talking to co-workers, or by listening to the radio on the way to and from work, or by having the television on in the background as they make their kids' lunches, or by deciding that one party is the right one for them and voting a party ticket, or by any other number of ways. It has nothing to do with how much time it takes to get the paperwork.

It comes down to this: you're proposing a hurdle to voting, and it is (I hope) uncontroversial that any hurdle to voting will lower the number of voters to some degree. To persuade me that the hurdle is necessary, you must show that it's a lesser evil than the evil the hurdle prevents, AND that there's no lesser hurdle that would prevent the same evil.

The New York Times had a great editorial on this issue yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html). Why do I call it "great"? Because it basically reiterated the arguments I'd already made in this thread :).



Daniel

You and the NYT continue to ignore the 600+ illegal votes, and 4,700 questionable registrations from the Loretta Sanchez vs. Bob Dornan campaign for Congress. That is one Congressionally reviewed example. Who knows how many more we would find if we started looking. People who have NO right to vote DO vote. Their votes cancel out mine. This should be stopped.

My point on paperwork was NOT a non-sequiter at all. The opponents of this brought up the horrible, horrible time impact of getting a birth certificate. Now, I can get mine from the US State Department with a letter and a check for $30 (and I already discussed the $30). I can get my kids from the State of California with a letter and a check as well. This is NOT that hard.

The USSC already found no problem in getting a photo ID for voting. I don't see citizenship as being that much more of a barrier.

Now, if you have an alternative proposal to ensure that only those allowed to vote do vote - please let us know what it is.

[spazattak]

There wouldn't be a problem if these documents could be gained freely, quickly by everyone. But that's not the world we live in.

[Algher]

Sometimes (ever hear of adoption?)- more frequently though there are people who's birth certificates just don't exist. Anecdotally, I know a few people under these exact circumstances.

In Missouri, it's not free - thus it's a form of poll tax.

So Missouri needs to offer and ID free to those who can not afford one, like Indiana (and many other states).

[Algher]

There wouldn't be a problem if these documents could be gained freely, quickly by everyone. But that's not the world we live in.

So fix that part while others try to clean up the voter rolls.

They do NOT need to be free to all, just affordable to all. They are already available quickly (less than a month for most documents).

[spazattak]

So Missouri needs to offer and ID free to those who can not afford one, like Indiana (and many other states).
I will waive my hands and make it so. The problem is - they don't (http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/license.htm) and have no plan to offer one.

[spazattak]

So fix that part while others try to clean up the voter rolls.

They do NOT need to be free to all, just affordable to all. They are already available quickly (less than a month for most documents).
I could've sworn the Supreme Court had already decided that if the ability to vote relies on a document that costs the potential voter money, it amounts to a poll tax.

[Algher]

I will waive my hands and make it so. The problem is - they don't (http://dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/license.htm) and have no plan to offer one.

And I already agreed that they should.

You seem to continue to ignore the problem of non-eligible people voting however.

[Algher]

I could've sworn the Supreme Court had already decided that if the ability to vote relies on a document that costs the potential voter money, it amounts to a poll tax.

Indiana's law passed muster, and they have ways for the indigent to vote.

Again - Missouri needs to come up to Indiana's levels (since we know that those are deemed fine by the Supremes).

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/index.html

[spazattak]

Indiana's law passed muster, and they have ways for the indigent to vote.

Again - Missouri needs to come up to Indiana's levels (since we know that those are deemed fine by the Supremes).

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/index.html
Yes they should.. the problem is they're not. It's another stupid law that'll end up getting tossed out in the state supreme court and cost the state money to defend.

[gonzomax]

The question is not whether any one can get enough proof to vote. The question is for what group of people would it be most difficult. If you came from New Orleans and got flooded out ,it might be difficult to obtain sufficient proof. If you are old and frail and don't know how to get things done .it may be a problem. if you are poor and lack transportation or a computer it may be difficult. Even the cost of documentation can be troublesome.
I went to the license bureau a couple days ago The sign said they were serving No, 34 . I pulled number 88. I was there for hours. I had a passport so I had no problem. But when I got the passport I had to obtain a new birth certificate. As I remember it took quite a while to show up after I applied on line. It cost money.. The passport was relatively expensive.
Poor people,uneducated people who have difficulty understanding the system, those without transportation and the old and frail have difficulties with the process. Most of these people are likely Democratic voters. That makes the move less about preventing voter fraud than making it difficult for likely democrats to vote.

[Algher]

The question is not whether any one can get enough proof to vote. The question is for what group of people would it be most difficult. If you came from New Orleans and got flooded out ,it might be difficult to obtain sufficient proof. If you are old and frail and don't know how to get things done .it may be a problem. if you are poor and lack transportation or a computer it may be difficult. Even the cost of documentation can be troublesome.
I went to the license bureau a couple days ago The sign said they were serving No, 34 . I pulled number 88. I was there for hours. I had a passport so I had no problem. But when I got the passport I had to obtain a new birth certificate. As I remember it took quite a while to show up after I applied on line. It cost money.. The passport was relatively expensive.
Poor people,uneducated people who have difficulty understanding the system, those without transportation and the old and frail have difficulties with the process. Most of these people are likely Democratic voters. That makes the move less about preventing voter fraud than making it difficult for likely democrats to vote.


Once AGAIN, you are ignoring the 600+ illegal votes and 4,700 questionable registrations in just one election in California.

You are worried about the poor not being able to prove who they are (the same poor that someone can cash checks, have credit cards, etc.) - I am worried about people who have NO right to vote cancelling out my ballot. Since those people are likely to vote Democrat, I can see what you want to keep the fraud going.

[gonzomax]

Not at all. It just is not true. There has been very little evidence of bad voting. Yet this cure you want will disenfranchise many ,many voters. It is a cure for a problem which does not exist. It also is a problem for specific groups of people.

[gravitycrash]

I admit to only reading half of this thread but I was tagged as a US citizen the moment I was born. I have a social security number and by God any Federal or state government will find you eventually.

I don't get the proof of ID as a sticking point at all. You need to be a legal citizen of the United States to vote. Why is this a hard concept to understand? I need a valid drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. Voting for the President of the United States requires less?

[Algher]

Not at all. It just is not true. There has been very little evidence of bad voting. Yet this cure you want will disenfranchise many ,many voters. It is a cure for a problem which does not exist. It also is a problem for specific groups of people.

I have given proof of bad voting in just one Congressional district in just one election. The problem exists.

You have given nothing, other than claims that there are apparently a bunch of voters out there with no form of identification or proof who will be disenfranchised. The folks who argued in front of the USSC for Indiana did not have any evidence either - that is why they lost (with even Stevens joining in the majority).

[gonzomax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html?ref=todayspaper Heres a NYT times article saying the same thing. The point not to get a clean election but to cut down on the poor people from voting. Were you at sleep during the Florida fiasco when the Repubs broomed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls. They had no interest in making the election fair. They were doing everything possible to eliminate potential democrats. It is not about fraud.

[gonzomax]

http://www.gregpalast.com/floridas-disappeared-voters-disfranchised-by-the-gop/ Heres the Palast report that shows what really is happening. This is voter fraud.

[Algher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html?ref=todayspaper Heres a NYT times article saying the same thing. The point not to get a clean election but to cut down on the poor people from voting. Were you at sleep during the Florida fiasco when the Repubs broomed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls. They had no interest in making the election fair. They were doing everything possible to eliminate potential democrats. It is not about fraud.

That is not an article, it is an editorial. It is also lacking any facts about fraud or disenfranchisement.

Once again - 600+ illegal votes in California in one District's election, and 4,700 questionable registrations. That is a fact.

Now - show me the data on voters who do not have any form of government ID.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I have given proof of bad voting in just one Congressional district in just one election. The problem exists.
As I acknowledged in post 57 (so please stop saying I'm ignoring that case--I specifically addressed it already, and you chose not to respond to my post there). You've pointed out one case in which bad voting occurred, under what are probably the ideal circumstances for such illegal voting to occur (a district with many undocumented aliens, with a Latino candidate, and an active illegal-alien-rights community), in which the amount of illegal voting STILL wasn't enough to sway the election, and which the Republican party itself decided the case wasn't bad enough to prompt further investigation. That's weak tea.

You have given nothing, .
Nonsense. I and others have pointed out that our nation's president was probably chosen in part due to the number of people unfairly PREVENTED from voting in 2000, due to overzealous efforts to prevent felons from casting illegal votes. That's a case in which an election was decided by a proposal similar to this one, and it was probably the most important election on earth in the past 10 years. YOU'RE the one ignoring the evidence we've offered.

Again: any effort to prevent illegal votes from being cast will necessarily prevent some legal votes from being cast. The experience of casting a vote is a greater good than the fact of an illegal vote being cast is an evil. It's more important to allow everyone eligible to vote than it is to prevent a few people from casting illegal votes, UNLESS there's evidence that those illegal votes are overturning elections.

You've offered exactly zero evidence that any time in the last 50 years illegal votes have decided an election. I see no illness for this remedy to cure.

Daniel

[Algher]

http://www.gregpalast.com/floridas-disappeared-voters-disfranchised-by-the-gop/ Heres the Palast report that shows what really is happening. This is voter fraud.

Voter fraud is when someone votes who has no right to.

This was a ham-fisted attempt to keep people from voting who have no right to, that also nailed a bunch of people who did have a right to vote. Every state has different rules on whether or not felons (and what types of felons) can vote. This has been investigated (and discussed here) multiple times.

None of this has anything to do with voter ID.

[BrainGlutton]

Voter fraud is when someone votes who has no right to.

This was a ham-fisted attempt to keep people from voting who have no right to, that also nailed a bunch of people who did have a right to vote. Every state has different rules on whether or not felons (and what types of felons) can vote. This has been investigated (and discussed here) multiple times.

None of this has anything to do with voter ID.

Well, it does, kinda. If we ever adopt a national ID card, presumably it would be linked to a database that would make it possible for the elections office to check your criminal history, if any, with one click.

[Algher]

As I acknowledged in post 57 (so please stop saying I'm ignoring that case--I specifically addressed it already, and you chose not to respond to my post there). You've pointed out one case in which bad voting occurred, under what are probably the ideal circumstances for such illegal voting to occur (a district with many undocumented aliens, with a Latino candidate, and an active illegal-alien-rights community), in which the amount of illegal voting STILL wasn't enough to sway the election, and which the Republican party itself decided the case wasn't bad enough to prompt further investigation. That's weak tea.


Nonsense. I and others have pointed out that our nation's president was probably chosen in part due to the number of people unfairly PREVENTED from voting in 2000, due to overzealous efforts to prevent felons from casting illegal votes. That's a case in which an election was decided by a proposal similar to this one, and it was probably the most important election on earth in the past 10 years. YOU'RE the one ignoring the evidence we've offered.

Again: any effort to prevent illegal votes from being cast will necessarily prevent some legal votes from being cast. The experience of casting a vote is a greater good than the fact of an illegal vote being cast is an evil. It's more important to allow everyone eligible to vote than it is to prevent a few people from casting illegal votes, UNLESS there's evidence that those illegal votes are overturning elections.

You've offered exactly zero evidence that any time in the last 50 years illegal votes have decided an election. I see no illness for this remedy to cure.

Daniel

So we have to wait until an election's outcome is changed to stop it? No thanks. I LIVE in an area filled with non citizens. I do NOT want them cancelling out my vote. You seem fine with taking away my civil rights, I am not. I welcome voter ID for that reason (not that it will pass in California any time soon).

I never stated that the illegals changed the election - I said that there was proof of voter fraud (and you agreed with me - but others still ignore that fact). Everyone around here keeps on claiming that there is no proof of fraud. You moved the goalposts to make it that there is no proof of vote fraud that might have changed the result of an election.

[gonzomax]

http://pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=9
In this article it mentions that US Atty from New Mexico , David Iglesias , was pressured to start a task force to investigate voter fraud. After 2 months he found zero cases he could prosecute successfully. When he refused to continue he got fired.

[Algher]

http://pubrecord.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=9
In this article it mentions that US Atty from New Mexico , David Iglesias , was pressured to start a task force to investigate voter fraud. After 2 months he found zero cases he could prosecute successfully. When he refused to continue he got fired.

In this article it also says that the Missouri law will provide for free ID:

The proposed amendment reads:

“This proposed constitutional amendment authorizes the General Assembly to require any person seeking to vote in a public election to provide election officials a form of identification that may be prescribed by law, including a government-issued photo identification, in order to show that he or she is a United States citizen lawfully residing in this state.”

It adds that “the State of Missouri will provide at no cost at least one form of the identification required to vote to any otherwise qualified citizen without proper identification who desires to vote.”

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

So we have to wait until an election's outcome is changed to stop it? No thanks.

And yet you're willing to have a cure that demonstrably HAS changed elections in order to fix this disease that hasn't changed elections.

I LIVE in an area filled with non citizens. I do NOT want them cancelling out my vote. You seem fine with taking away my civil rights, I am not.
Your civil rights have not been removed. That's silly: they've no more been removed than they would have been had someone voted an exact mirror ticket of yours. You were able to vote; your vote influenced the election.

I never stated that the illegals changed the election - I said that there was proof of voter fraud (and you agreed with me - but others still ignore that fact). Everyone around here keeps on claiming that there is no proof of fraud. You moved the goalposts to make it that there is no proof of vote fraud that might have changed the result of an election.
I didn't move the goalposts: I set them in post 43 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9794743&postcount=43), before you joined the thread. Voter fraud that doesn't change an election is significant inasmuch as it should be prosecuted, sure, but it is insignificant inasmuch as it doesn't actually present a danger sufficient to warrant measures that clearly DO present their own dangers.

This is a cure in search of a problem: it's chemotherapy for a cancer-free patient. We don't need it. Lesser measures (vigorous prosecution of those very few cases of illegal vote-casting) is a much better solution than erecting a hurdle to voting would be.

Daniel

[Bricker]

The experience of casting a vote is a greater good than the fact of an illegal vote being cast is an evil. It's more important to allow everyone eligible to vote than it is to prevent a few people from casting illegal votes, UNLESS there's evidence that those illegal votes are overturning elections.

You assert this balance as a fact. Why? I say it's better for people to have confidence that their legal votes are not being negated by illegal votes. You say that the good feeling that innures toa voter from merely voting is a greater good, and I ask you to prove that, or qualify it as simply your personal view.

[gonzomax]

In this article it also says that the Missouri law will provide for free ID:
I got a free ID this week. It took a lot of time and I had to get there. I had to have proof (essentially other ID ) to get my free ID. When I got the passport a few years ago it was pretty involved and expensive. That Id was not free. So I need an Id that costs money to get a free ID. Thanks for the deal.

[gonzomax]

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/reports/purging-vrdb.pdf Heres a nice MIT study indicating 57,000 voters may have been excluded in Florida in 2000. The article shows the intent was not to clean the system. That was just the excuse. It was to broom voters in the Democratic demographic.

[Bricker]

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/reports/purging-vrdb.pdf Heres a nice MIT study indicating 57,000 voters may have been excluded in Florida in 2000. The article shows the intent was not to clean the system. That was just the excuse. It was to broom voters in the Democratic demographic.

Where exactly does the article show that?

[gonzomax]

It does say that removal of voters from registration lists is an operation that has been historically disenfranchised minorities and hurt confidence in the election system.
That is in the conclusion . It says purging has disenfranchised minorities. The minorities are mostly Democratic voters. Ergo the end is Democratic voters are removed helping the Republicans.

[CalMeacham]

Once again - 600+ illegal votes in California in one District's election, and 4,700 questionable registrations. That is a fact.


Apparently, it's not a fact:


On April 29, 1998, California's Republican secretary of state announced that the people identified by the task force as illegal, non-citizen voters in the 46th congressional district election of 1996 would not be prosecuted for voter fraud, the secretary deciding that they had registered in error and not from criminal intent

--An Analysis of Voter fraud in the Us report by Lorraine C. Minnite of Demos at http://www.demos.org/pubs/analysis_voter_fraud.pdf

It cites The Washington Post, March 1, 1998, p. A19 on this point.

[3acresandatruck]

This looks like just another fear of swarthy people kind of law. I emailed my state representative to let her know of my opposition to this. I'm tired of digging up old papers and new forms to keep driving or voting or whatever else the frightened legislators are afraid the Bad People might be doing. She responded by letting me know she already opposes it and thanking me for my support. We had something similar last time I had to renew my driver's license. One of my options for identifying myself was to bring in a US passport (even if expired). The ladies down at the license bureau thought it was hysterically funny when I handed over my 40-year-old passport, featuring my photo as a 12-year-old boy, as legally acceptable identification for getting my new Missouri operator's license. I think any kind of ID can get faked, but that guy on the old passport was me, trust me. Really.

[Bricker]

It does say that removal of voters from registration lists is an operation that has been historically disenfranchised minorities and hurt confidence in the election system.
That is in the conclusion . It says purging has disenfranchised minorities. The minorities are mostly Democratic voters. Ergo the end is Democratic voters are removed helping the Republicans.

Your "ergo" is the problem here.

Felony laws have historically resulted in higher imprisonment of minorities. Ergo, the end intention of felony laws is the imprisonment of minorities?

See the difference here? You said The article shows the intent was not to clean the system. That was just the excuse. It was to broom voters in the Democratic demographic.

Now, where in the article does it say that, gonzomax?

[Algher]

Apparently, it's not a fact:




--An Analysis of Voter fraud in the Us report by Lorraine C. Minnite of Demos at http://www.demos.org/pubs/analysis_voter_fraud.pdf

It cites The Washington Post, March 1, 1998, p. A19 on this point.

yes, it is:

On April 29, 1998, California’s Republican secretary of state announced that the people identified by the task force as illegal, non-citizen voters in the 46th congressional district election of 1996 would not be prosecuted
for voter fraud, the secretary deciding that they had registered in error and not from criminal intent.52

FACT: Illegal, non-citizens cast votes.

Again - they decided that there were not enough to have tipped the election (especially since you don't know WHO they voted for). However - Illegal, non-citizens voted in that election.

We do NOT know how many other elections have been swayed by illegal, non-citizens voting. It takes work and money to investigate.

Voter ID would help fix that.

[Algher]

And yet you're willing to have a cure that demonstrably HAS changed elections in order to fix this disease that hasn't changed elections.


Your civil rights have not been removed. That's silly: they've no more been removed than they would have been had someone voted an exact mirror ticket of yours. You were able to vote; your vote influenced the election.


I didn't move the goalposts: I set them in post 43 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9794743&postcount=43), before you joined the thread. Voter fraud that doesn't change an election is significant inasmuch as it should be prosecuted, sure, but it is insignificant inasmuch as it doesn't actually present a danger sufficient to warrant measures that clearly DO present their own dangers.

This is a cure in search of a problem: it's chemotherapy for a cancer-free patient. We don't need it. Lesser measures (vigorous prosecution of those very few cases of illegal vote-casting) is a much better solution than erecting a hurdle to voting would be.

Daniel

There is a difference between my vote being cancelled by a legitimate vote, and my vote being cancelled by an illegal vote. In the former, it is politics. In the latter, it is disenfranchisement and an assault upon my civil rights when people refuse to stop it (and worse - encourage it).

Again - where are these legions of registered voters who possess no form of identification? I would love to meet them - they must be amazing people. They have lived their entire life without a bank account, a social security card, a drivers license or a passport. Perhaps they are Amish? I certainly would encourage the same good-hearted people who go out and do voter registration drives to help those folks get an ID card to ensure that they can vote.

As for the goalposts - I have been responding to all of the people who keep on claiming that there are no illegal aliens voting. I agree - you have been clear since the beginning that even if there are illegals voting, absent evidence of those votes making a difference you consider the ID to cause more problems than it solves. I respect and understand your position, I simply disagree with it.

My first reaction when reading the thread was to this statement:
Voyager, in post 6:Illegal immigrants in general are petrified about getting caught and returned. There is a real problem getting them signed up even for stuff they are allowed to get since they are so scared of the government. Thinking that there is going to be a problem with them marching up and showing id to vote is absurd.
You did appear to think that there is minimal illegal alien voting with this statement, however in post 53: My suspicion is that vanishingly few undocumented folks try to vote: folks without documentation generally try to avoid contact with the state as much as possible, and this would seem an absurd risk to most of them.
Ravenman made this claim: I'm not sure that anyone has identified a specific case where it has shown to be anything more than a theoretical (yet reasonable) problem.
Gonzomax said this: It is a cure for a problem which does not exist

Each of these posts implies that illegal / non-citizens voting does not exist - when I pointed out that it DID exist, and with enough of an issue to warrent an investigation, your were the only one to really see that. You also stated that it was not enough to make a difference, so who cares. I respond (again) that I care, as do many voters in my County. Unfortunately, the Democrats apparently LOVE illegal votes cast, and they LOVE the votes from felons - so anything that might hurt those two critical Demcratic constituencies must be protected.

You made this claim too: And yet you're willing to have a cure that demonstrably HAS changed elections in order to fix this disease that hasn't changed elections.

Now - where has voter ID requirements changed an election? Or are you mixing this issue up with the felon database again?

Mind you, all of this is a slight hijack of the beginning of the thread regarding proving citizenship status. That is still an open issue, since proving that you are a citizen is harder than just proving that you are you under our current system. The other interesting bit is that the same people that used to fight against a national ID are now starting to embrace the concept. Their fear of the State is apparently weaker than their fear of illegals.

[Cardinal]

Illegal immigrants in general are petrified about getting caught and returned. There is a real problem getting them signed up even for stuff they are allowed to get since they are so scared of the government. Thinking that there is going to be a problem with them marching up and showing id to vote is absurd. What are illegal immigrants allowed to get, besides emergency medicine?

[Squink]

Missouri Legislature Ends Session With Voter ID Amendment Still on Agenda (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/17/us/politics/17missouri.html?ref=politics) Missouri lawmakers ended their legislative session on Friday without completing action on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have enabled election officials to require proof of citizenship from people registering to vote.
The bill failed to go to the Senate floor for a vote in part because of pressure by the secretary of state and grass-roots groups, said a Republican lobbyist who worked for the measure.

The lobbyist asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak...