Comes now the federal judge team of Chief Judge Kozinski, Judge Ikuta, and Judge Berzon, and they say that Arizona’s requirement that voters present ID before voting is valid:
Gonzalez v. Arizona.
And (obviously) emphasis added.
This finding rejects arguments made in many different voter ID threads.
Cites on request.
I can agree with this ruling. Asking for ID to register to vote seems like a no brainer as long as the state is willing to pay for it for people who can’t afford one. One can argue about the wisdom of such laws, but the constitutionality seems pretty obvious.
Please?
Does the system in Arizona allow poor people to obtain an ID without paying for it?
Many of the arguments I’ve seen here were really ridiculous and ultimately was used to address the problem a person in the back woods with no address, lost their birth certificate, with no internet access even through the library and couldn’t afford the $30 + 2 stamps for a birth cerificate and SS card.
But when I used the argument that having to pay for ID was a “poll tax” and pointed out via reducto ad absurbum that requiring a person to drive (i.e. own a car) or pay for a bus ride was likewise a poll tax, I was an idiot who didn’t get it.
Sigh, do we have to go through the whole “disenfranchising tens of thousands of largely Democratic voters to prevent practically non-existant voter fraud is a bad thing for democracy?” again. It may be constitutional, but its still a bad idea. If you really want to fight voter fraud, outlaw absentee ballots. Admitedly this will likely most affect military and elderly voters who tend to vote GOP, but that’s their problem.
Discussion of a similar law in Tennessee:
Discussion of a law in South Carolina blocked by the Justice Department, not the courts:
A Pit of voting reform laws, including voter ID requirements:
This thread is to reinforce the claim that it is constitutional.
I am not taking a position in this thread on whether it’s a good idea.
[QUOTE=Arizona MVD]
5) How do I apply for an ID card?
An identification (ID) card is available to all ages (including infants) for a fee of $12. For persons age 65 and over, or anyone receiving federal Supplemental Security Income disability payments, there is no fee. You may not possess an Arizona identification card and a valid driver license at the same time.
Identification cards do not expire (unless issued in place of a suspended driver license). If issued in place of a suspended driver license, the card is valid for 180 days.
You must visit an MVD office to complete an application and have a photo taken. Begin your application online. If you need to print one, see Driver License/Identification Card Application. You must bring in two forms of identification, at least one must contain a photo, or three forms of non-photo identification. See Identification Requirements for a listing of acceptable proof of identification. One proof must be listed under Primary.
If you are age 18 or under and unable to sign for yourself, a parent or legal guardian may sign the credential and the legal guardian section on the application.
[/QUOTE]
If you cannot afford the $12
[QUOTE=Arizona Sec’y of State]
List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required)
•Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
•Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
•Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
•Indian census card
•Property tax statement of the elector’s residence
•Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
•Arizona vehicle insurance card
•Recorder’s Certificate
•Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
•Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”
[/QUOTE]
I would say that 2 of a utility bill, voter registration card and mailing would be pretty easy to obtain, especially the last 2 if you registered to vote.
What I would like to see is a discussion of the part struck down.
However, the 12-member panel struck down a provision requiring voters to show proof of citizenship.
The court, however, found that the federal National Voter Registration Act trumps another section of the Arizona law that requires people to prove their citizenship in order to vote. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof as Arizona’s law does.
So you don’t have to prove you’re a citizen to vote, merely say that you are.
Why not? Pinning you down on that question has been like trying to impale a blob of mercury with a sewing needle.
Why do you care what my idea of a good idea is? I’m not a legislator.
I have a fair amount of expertise in reading and interpreting laws, though, so I would think my opinion of the law’s constitutionality would be of interest.
But why is my opinion of the law’s goodness valuable?
Because if the law is taken and returned then if it weren’t good in the first place then its goodness is not impaired and no theft has occurred. Or something.
Why is it so important that your opinion on this matter be masked if you are not acting in an official manner for either side? Opinions are not a weakness per se-in fact, having an opinion that swings one way and yet allowing that the law might swing the other can be seen as a strength.
I’ve not found it to be so. For example, despite feeling that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a horribly unwise and socially poor idea, I have always opined that it was constitutional, yet I don’t seem to draw any particular strength from that.
People seem to assess the merits of my argument on the basis of whether I support their current position, period.
I disagree. Saying that you disagreed with the ACA and yet allowing that it was constitutional puts you on a much higher level then those who gave an opinion on the constitutionality based solely on their personal likes and dislikes. It openly says that you are less likely to spin facts to suit your needs.
So far as I can recall, this is the first time I have seen this sentiment expressed about my position on this or any issue by anyone here.
Just my personal opinion. If I had any stats I’d show 'em. 
Well, OK. Unfortunately, the formula does not work to my benefit here, since I believe these laws are a good idea, provided the IDs in question are free of charge.
There’s nothing wrong with opinion lining up with fact, of course. In this matter I think I agree-there seems to be no real difficulty in acquiring the I.D., and it serves a very useful purpose. Baring some sort of convincing “slippery slope” problem, of course.
Why is it a good idea? If a thing is not broken, why fix it? And, more importantly, why fix it in a way that blatantly favors the political advantage of one party over another?
Have you any doubt about that, that such is the intent here?