So what? New York doesn’t require that photo ID for you to vote, so that’s not particularly relevant.
In states that require a photo ID to vote, the photo ID is itself free.
Right?
Are you asking for confirmation or is that rhetorical? If you’re trying to say “it stands to reason,” well, that’s not enough to convince me.
At the very least, it’s not a ridiculous notion that a state could, in separate pieces of legislation or regulation, require ID to vote and require a fee for ID (or for access to the documentation needed to get ID) and legitimately not call it a poll tax.
I have ID. Why do I need another ID?
And why should I pay $47 to vote? Why not make it $470?
It’s for you to provide a counter-example, since you’re the one making the claim.
There’s clearly a difference between the ID itself, and whatever tangential expenses are required to obtain the ID. I certainly concede that no state offers free shuttle service from the registrant’s home to the local ID supply point and no state mandates that all employers offer paid time off to their employees to allow them to obtain the IDs. My comment relates only to the cost of the ID card itself, and not to whatever other costs might arise in the ordinary course of obtaining one.
So with that said, yes, it is a ridiculous notion that a could require an ID to vote and not supply that ID with the payment of a fee. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966), the Supreme Court held that Virginia could not withhold the right to vote on the payment of a poll tax of $1.50. In Crawford v. Marion County, the Court mentions the Harper decision with approval and goes on to say that Indiana’s Voter ID framework is permissible only because it does NOT charge for IDs:
(emphasis added)
So as a matter of extant caselaw, yes, Hershele Ostropoler, it IS a ridiculous notion that a state could, in separate pieces of legislation or regulation, require ID to vote and require a fee for ID.
And that should be enough to convince you. A state that did otherwise is clearly and blatantly in violation of the mandate set forth in Crawford.
Any sort of Voter ID or National ID needs to be issued by offices open 24/7 then.
9-5 M-F just doesn’t work for lots and lots of people.
So are your worries then assuaged that just because an election comes within 100 or so votes, it might have been stolen (i.e., the result changed) as a result of illegitimate votes? Because for that to happen, one of those two things (or, to be fair, some combination of them) must have occurred.
It’s not enough to say “Well, the election came within 127 votes, and there might have been 127 illegitimate votes cast, therefore illegitimate votes might have changed the outcome of the election”. Because, you see, this was, by premise, an extremely close election, such that any given randomly-selected voter had very nearly a 50-50 chance of voting either way. For all of the illegitimate votes to have gone the same way would defy all belief, unless they were the result of a conspiracy hundreds strong.
But of course, it is also unlikely (though not nearly as much so) for all of the illegitimate votes to be exactly equally divided, and so illegitimate votes probably would change the net margin between the candidates. This, then, leads us to our second possibility: How many illegitimate votes would be necessary for it to be plausible that they might, on net, make a difference? The error in a discrete stochastic process such as this scales with the square root of the number of events, so in order for a error on order of one hundred votes to be plausible, you would need on the order of ten thousand events, i.e., illegitimate votes.
I don’t agree with the assumption that illegitimate votes are distributed even between the two parties. One common cause for an illegitimate vote would be a felon, ineligible to vote, but mistakenly voting anyway. I believe that ex-felons’ votes trend significantly towards one party.
Another would be a non-citizen voting. And I believe that for the majority of non-citizens in this country, the trend would also be towards one party.
In other words, VMR =/= 0
This would defeat the real purpose of the law. If voter ID proponents thought that everyone would be able to obtain the needed ID, they wouldn’t be bothering to enact these laws. They don’t want convenience - their real goal is for some people to find it too difficult to get IDs.
It’s like the old literacy tests - they were designed for people to fail.
You are prone to sudden spasms of coy. Pretty sure everybody here knows you are talking about Democrats, and nobody is fooled. Do you imagine there is some difference between stating what you cannot prove and merely insinuating it?
This oughta be good. 
I suppose it depends on whether they just got out of a Club Fed resort for insider trading, or were in Stateville Prison for drug possession.
Did you know that the chef at Club Fed cannot make a decent white sauce?
I can’t prove that felons, as a population, are not likely to be random in their voting patterns?
Sure I can.
Sure. But how many people just got out of a Club Fed resort for insider trading, and how does that compare to the number that were in were in Stateville Prison for drug possession?
I’m not making an argument, I’m making fun of you. You keep forgetting to install that humor chip I got you for Christmas.
And appreciate the twenty page PDF you offer for cite. But I stopped taking reading assignments when I stopped having to ask for a hall pass.
All the ex-felons I know hate Obama and would never, ever vote Dem.
Of course, you will agree, that is no reason why they should not be allowed to vote, nor even a reason why they should not try, nor is it a reason why Pubs have any business preventing them.
For my two bits, an ex-felon who wants to vote is showing a healthy interest in his participation, and should be encouraged.
Twenty pages isn’t that daunting, is it?
But sure, since you ask nicely:
Well, let’s not conflate two different arguments. The paper I linked to – the one that was too long for poor elucidator – makes a strong case that democratic principles require letting felons regain their voting rights.
So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this is indeed a great idea.
It’s still not correct to count felons’ votes if that change hasn’t happened yet.
See the distinction? Here, in this sub-thread, I argue that it’s not correct to claim that felons would vote randomly. You’re now starting to talk about why we don’t let felons vote and if we should let felons vote. I hope you agree that felons shouldn’t vote illegally, though, even if you think they should have the legal right to vote.