It would not surprise me if most people don’t. I didn’t until it came time to apply for a passport, when I had to send off to the state I was born in for a copy. There was a processing fee, I forget how much but I think much less than the $24 mentioned. I sent for a few copies to bring over here with me after that.
I only have a copy of mine because, at some point before I turned 18, my parents got a copy, and I took it with me when I moved out. I don’t know what it took to get a copy, but if they hadn’t done it (or if they hadn’t been minimally competent bookkeepers) I wouldn’t have one today. Not without having to file a bunch of paperwork and pay some fees, at any rate.
Have you ever lost something in the mail? :dubious:
Congratulations on answering a question that wasn’t asked. The point was being made about voter qualification laws such as literacy tests being illegal, which they are. We are well aware that voter ID laws are leeeeeeeeeegal, which from your point of view is the only issue that anyone should care about. It may surprise you to know that many things are legal which are not right, of which voter ID laws are most assuredly one.
I don’t have a physical paper copy of my birth certificate, though I was born in the US and could get a copy.
It would take time, money, effort, and knowledge, all of which I have, and someone else may not.
Did you not read post #13?
Yep. I was talking about voter qualification laws as referenced in post 9.
Then you didn’t understand what that poster was doing. He was drawing an analogy between voter ID laws and voter qualification laws such as “taking a test before being allowed to vote”. His claim was that both types of laws are “struck down”. He was wrong, and I told him so. Bricker then pointed to a specific case where voter ID laws were upheld.
You’re calling out Bricker for addressing a point that no one was making is simply wrong. aNewLeaf was trying to make that exact point. Post 9 is not complete without post 13 clarifying it.
Part of the problem is that the poor have difficulties with everything, not just voter ID requirements. Transportation issues. Incidental expense issues. Permanent address issues. Work conflict issues. Often, language barrier or literacy issues. Any hurdle is difficult to surpass because the poor by definition are people who are not succeeding at the single most important task in our society: having a cash income. And if any minority group is disproportionately poor, than it becomes an issue, because even absent deliberate discrimination you still have “disparate impact”.
Apparently Republican politicians want voter ID laws because they think Democratic voters are stupid and dishonest. And Democratic politicians oppose voter ID laws because they agree.
Regards,
Shodan
cite for that last bit?
Sure it was asked – or, more accurately, asserted, by aNewLeaf:
No – neither this
nor this
translates to “stupid and dishonest.” Vadum – and not he alone in the GOP, I am sure – does not want the poor voting simply because they are poor; and Dems acknowledge that the poor have special problems with voting simply because they are poor.
Of course, at least you want the poor to vote, don’t you, Shodan?
Think you for your response, and your questions. First, allow me to apologize for creating what I have learned is a redundant thread. I only found this site yesterday, and I saw a chance to have answered, a question which had been running through my mind. To answer your question, the only person I was assuming was uninformed, was me.
In looking at the idea as I had heard it presented, I could not see how such legislation, in itself, could be suppressive, and so I did not understand the opposition to it. However, I have been fortunate, here, in that my question was treated as the sincere question it was, rather than as an assertion of an opinion. Given the recent polarization of American politics, I have come to look upon any position as being potentially partisan, until I learn of the actual arguments. Unfortunately, many people vehemently oppose the other party’s legislation, when the same legislation, if propose by their own party, would receive their enthusiastic support. In looking at Voter ID laws, I could not readily see the dangers, and based upon responses here, it looks like the danger is not in the legislation itself, but in the political shysterism and gamesmanship that would become possible, once this legislation were in place, not unlike Gerrymandering.
Responders have given good examples of how trickery has already been used in cases like this, and so I consider that at least that side of the case has been proven, The other half is whether the benefits would be worth the risks, and so it would require an epidemic of such voter fraud to justify this legislation, and so far, I haven’t seen any real evidence of such fraud, even though the two parties are fond of accusing each other, after every election.
Another point I had not considered, is that even if this legislation could not possibly lead to suppression, if there is also no such fraud, then legislation becomes a waste of time and resources.
I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my question, I now feel that I am better informed on the pertinent factors.
Indeed, I didn’t even notice that you were using a particularly fancy word. I saw you effectively communicating what you meant.
Now, as it happens, I disagree with what you said: In so far as people voting multiple times is a problem that’s supposed to be solved by voter ID laws, the ink-on-the-thumb method addresses the same problem as voter ID laws. There are other problems that voter ID could solve (such as people voting who are not registered), but those are already addressed by other solutions like having a big book listing everyone registered in the precinct at the polling station, which I think most places already do.
Indeed – and as I’ve said before, I’d give up photo ID if we could agree to capture the voter’s thumbprint when he casts his ballot. That proves a direct link between person and voting, sufficient to prosecute someone who votes illegally, which is the only goal I’m pushing. There are liberals hereabouts, though, who oppose this solution, for reasons unclear to me.
Still nobody has come up with evidence that there’s a problem with people voting multiple times.
That’s not the problem. The problem is people voting when they’re not permitted to vote.
This may happen innocently, in fact. A non-citizen may not realize the vote is limited to citizens; a convicted felon may not realize that his conviction lost him the right to vote.
But their votes, however much they are cast in good faith, are not legitimate.
I hope we can at least agree that the use of things like caging lists is a solution far worse than the problem, if any, and that organizations like True the Vote should not be allowed even to try it.
Is there any evidence this is a widespread problem?
And as a followup, is there evidence that the answer is National ID cards?