I remember when I was a kid (like, under 10) going with my mom to vote. For whatever reason, I asked her why they needed her ID. I still distinctly remember them leafing through packet with a list of names, finding hers and crossing it off. She said it’s to make sure you don’t vote more than once. Honestly, it made perfect sense and it took a long time to wrap my head around why voter ID is a problem.
Even today, while I argue against it, I have no issue with some method of making sure any given person can only vote one time. Showing your ID seems like a good method, and in theory it should be, but it simply isn’t.
In theory, I’d be on board with election ink. However, my issue is that I don’t think people should be compelled to vote but I think a lot of people that don’t want to will feel pressure to do so since it’ll be so obvious that they didn’t. I suppose you could stand in line, wait your turn, get your ink and then turn in a blank ballot (or otherwise not vote).
In any case, requiring everyone to stain their finger purple in order to vote almost certainly wouldn’t go over well. People have a tendency to push back against being told what to do for the sake of pushing back.
In NJ, you go to the right line, say who you are, and sign the form. They check the signature.
This past election, all the ballots were mail-in. My daughter’s ballot got rejected because her signature at 23 had changed sufficiently from when she was 18 that it was bounced. Luckily, she had time to sign a document saying it was her.
Anyway, my point is, this all seems to work fine in NJ, and they even found my daughter’s “bad” signature, which would have prevented fraud, had she been fraudulently trying to vote.
Not only do I think voter ID does little to dissuade voting, I actually think a Federal voter ID law could clear up a lot of problems with the state laws. Because you could make sure:
You could entirely Federalize the issuance of it ala the Passport system. So state governments can’t even mess around with issuance.
You could standardize exactly how and when the ID can be required at the polls and specify a standard system for utilizing it.
You could standardize acceptable alternative documents.
The goal would likely be any state issued driver’s license still would suffice, and for most would still be the primary form of producing ID at the polls. But the national voter ID would exist to cover all the other scenarios and since it would be Federally managed, a lot of the shenanigans around it wouldn’t be present. Remember how in Alabama huge parts of the state had their DMV offices shut down and limited hours, making it hard to get an ID? If the national voter ID was run like the Passport system you’d basically be able to get one at most post offices.
If you refer to the thread topic, it is being proposed specifically as a compromise to get important voting legislation passed. I would, and I would hope any Democratic member of congress, would agree to this in exchange for say, gerrymander reform or etc. Giving up almost nothing to get a lot is a pretty good thing in terms of horse trading. I have also specifically noted there is no compromise to be had, at least with McConnell. He knows voter ID is mostly nothing, but that gerrymander massively helps his party. So he wouldn’t release enough Republicans in the Senate to clear 60 on any compromise.
As I noted the best a compromise can hope for is getting sign on from the 3-5 moderate Republican Senators still left, in the hopes that figleaf of bipartisanship will give the Manchins and Sinemas of the Dem party the guts to bust the filibuster to pass this legislation.
Will that happen? I find it very unlikely, but no reason not to try. That being said the core point that Voter ID for Gerrymandering reform is a damn good deal stands. Especially since there’s ways you could structure Voter ID that it actually makes our election system more uniform (which is good.)
Do you have any actual evidence voter ID has disenfranchised 1.6m Floridians?
So to actually understand where you are coming from. It was proposed (and is in the title of the thread) that we’re talking about acceptable compromises to get voting rights legislation passed. Someone suggested Voter ID for Gerrymandering reform would be a good compromise. I posted in agreement, and then later posted another thing saying much the same. With that context why are you now posting something like this where you seem to suggest “I think the problem is we haven’t placed enough obstacles in the way?” It’s like you aren’t noticing this is specifically a proposed compromise (meaning you give something you may not like in exchange for something you do), but instead are treating it like I just rolled into the thread and started blindly advocating for Voter ID. Could you explain your reason for presenting my point this way?
And the very reason why the GOP keeps wanting voter ID to be required is to disenfranchise those very voters.
The GOP knows there is no significant voter fraud, in fact most of it seems to come from their voters.
The GOP also puts up barriers to make it difficult for those people to get a ID, such as high fees, no online registration, limited hours and offices only in white neighborhoods.
Also, Indian tribal members living “on the rez” only need a Tribal ID, if any, and of course the GOP wants to exclude those.
A federally-recognized, tribal-issued ID card is also a valid form of government-issued photo identification in many places, though some places may be unaware of this. For example, a tribal ID card is valid at federal buildings, airports, and banks.[3379] It is also proof of eligibility for certain services such as the federal Indian Health Service; it allows you to opt out of Covered California (meaning, you can get an exemption from the tax penalty under “Obamacare”);[3380] and it can be used to prove your identification for the California LifeLine cell phone program (learn more about the program on PG. 501).[3381]
A student ID is also good for some purposes, but generally not for voting.
And you do NOT need to show your ID to buy booze- many of the “un-IDed” are senior citizens, and in most places if you look that old, no iD is required. They already have a bank account, they already have a home, etc.
Some studies have shown that getting a holiday for voting increases voting, others claim that people will just take it as a day to go to the beach etc. And note, not everyone gets paid holidays or weekends off.
You have to have 1) money 2) residency 3) proof of residency 4) birth certificate 5) transportation. These are just off the top of my head. It punishes poor and other marginalized groups.
A lot of people drive cars without licenses. It may not be legal, but there’s nothing physically stopping someone from doing it.
If you look old enough, you don’t need an ID to buy alcohol. I’m 40, look young and haven’t been carded in years at places that don’t just card every single person as a matter of policy. Also, not everyone drinks.
Not renting or buying a home, not having a cell phone, not opening a bank account. That’s all part of being homeless, which is a part of society we’re trying to help make voting easier for, not harder.
Not applying for a job…some people don’t have jobs, a lot of people, in fact, don’t have jobs. There’s presumably a large overlap between this group and the homeless group. There’s also a large segment of the population that isn’t applying for a job because they already have a job. I’m willing to bet there’s a non-insignificant amount of people that have been working the same crappy job for years and years and years. They may have had all the info they needed to fill out their I9 when they got the job, but since misplaced it.
This would also apply to bank accounts. You might have had the proper ID when you opened it 20 years ago but no longer have it.
Regarding SNAP benefits, a government issued photo ID that would be required for voting isn’t required to apply for benefits. From here:
“You need proof of identity. A photo ID is one way to prove identity. You can’t be turned down for SNAP benefits because you don’t have photo ID. You can use another ID like a work or school badge, a health benefits card, an ID from another social service, a pay stub, a birth certificate, or a voter registration card. The SNAP worker can also check your identity by calling shelter workers or employers.”
"SNAP offices must set up ways to serve homeless people. They can find an authorized representative or mail your benefits to the shelter where you stay. "
“Homeless young people can apply for SNAP benefits on their own. Their parent’s income does not count. If you live in a shelter, bring a letter from a shelter employee that says you live there when you apply”
Like I said earlier to someone else, the argument that Voter ID isn’t a big deal because everyone needs an ID to function is an old argument and easily proven wrong. The fact of the matter is, there’s a lot of people out there that don’t have IDs.
I feel I’ve already addressed this point but I’ll repeat myself in case I wasn’t clear.
The belief that an acceptable compromise is possible is based on the premise that both sides have a goal the other is willing to accept. I feel that is not the case here.
The Republicans talk about wanting to prevent voter fraud but that’s not their real goal. Their real goal is to disenfranchise legitimate voters. So the Republicans will not support any proposed compromise that does not include disenfranchising more voters.
The Democratic goal is to let more legitimate voters vote not less. The Democrats should not agree to any compromise that makes this problem worse and disenfranchises more legitimate voters.
There are no common grounds for a compromise here. This is not a situation where two separate issues can be linked together. The two parties are on opposite sides of a single issue.
No, sorry, I should have mentioned that before you drove all the way to El Paso. You’re required to travel there by public transportation and you have to show your ticket receipt as proof.