The right is conditioned on being of age and a citizen, and voting once only. So yes, there are conditions. And those conditions are what the ID is supposed to check.
Just a quick note on the ‘ease’ of getting a state issued ID, at least here in Minneapolis. TheKid, 17, wants to get her ID as she will probably not have a drivers’ license for a year. First we had to go get a certified copy of her birth certificate ($26). I don’t know about you, but most people I know do not have a certified copy of their BC laying around. That part was simple, just a 90 minute wait at our local service center, with decent hours. Luckily, being her mom, it was just a matter of showing my drivers’ license. If I hadn’t gone with, she would have needed someone who has known her for a few years to vouch for her identity.
For people who have never had a state issued ID before, you have to go to a specific service center on the southside of the city. It’s open M-F, 9am-5pm. So, not only do I have to drive to an area I am totally not familiar with, I also have to take time off from work to take her there. The cost for the ID is $18, not horrible, but added to the cost of the birth certificate we’re at $44, not including the time cost and gas cost.
I can easily see someone who has young children, medical issues, or who has difficulties taking off from work seeing the process as not simple.
I believe, ordinarily, the Supreme Court tries to grant the broadest latitude for a given right. All rights are circumscribed and not absolute but restrictions on those rights try to be narrow.
If you can show that Wisconsin’s new restrictions are necessary to prevent voter fraud I’ll eat my hat. That before these restrictions there was a real issue that needed to be addressed.
Their restrictions are clearly aimed at disenfranchising a certain segment of the voting public.
Not quite. The felon restrictions kick in in many places, certainly in my state. Many people in my area are not U.S. citizens - but determining this fact would be difficult without an identification check or registration process of some kind.
And sure - there are restrictions on other rights in various ways. The right to bear arms in many locations is made conditional on various paperwork requirements and even fees, and this right is similarly removed upon conviction of a felony even if the felony was nonviolent. So this comparison does not hold up well, in my opinion.
sigh
Conditions intrinsic to the activity. The right is granted to citizens of age. Full stop. That said, it seems that my original argument focused more on the semantics of yours and I don’t seem to have that much of a case regarding that anyways (@Mr. Moto: I disagree heavily with removing the rights of felons to vote, just FYI), so I’ll just drop it for now and just focus on the key problem here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14230753&postcount=284 (starting from the second quote; the first one is slightly hyperbolic and pointless)
and, for good measure:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14231703&postcount=302
Look, if it was no skin off of anyone’s back to get a photo ID, or voter fraud actually made a whit of real difference in reality, this discussion would not be happening.
If the government would search through your records, and, upon you turning 18, deliver a freshly stamped photo ID to your doorstep, free of charge, without any more than truly minimal hassle/paperwork, then this would not be a discussion, because nobody would be disenfranchised–everyone would have absolutely no problem getting a voter ID.
If the voting booths were overrun by fraudulent voters, illegal immigrants, and this was making a demonstrable and real impact on election results; if control of our government was going over to those smart enough to scam the system and the massive inflow of illegal immigrants (and we could demonstrate that these claims were more than just hearsay and demagoguery, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the case), then this would not be a discussion, because regardless of the disenfranchisement, ID would be an unfortunate necessity to ensure that the will of the people is actually upheld.
If either of those conditions were anywhere near the reality, then I guarantee, none but the most radical political spinsters would be trying to pass this off as disenfranchisement for poor/immigrant/etc. voters. But here’s the problem: they don’t. Getting a photo ID as it stands right now involves a lot of time that poor families often simply do not have, an amount of transit that can be very inconvenient, and an amount of money that, while perhaps insignificant to you, is around a day’s wages for someone living on minimum wage–and that just for suffrage?! What makes this even worse is what I’ve heard about republicans closing DMVs and the like in democratic/poor areas. If these allegations are true (I do not have a source at the moment, so take this with a grain of salt), then there’s really absolutely no question here: this is purely to disenfranchise the voters in those lower-class communities. And I welcome you to cite cases of actual voter fraud. Go ahead, find me one where more than 0.001% of the voting populace in a state or federal election was found to be fraudulent. Until you do, you have absolutely no plausibility when it comes to claims that this is at all necessary.
I have to say that I find it implausible that any meaningful number of illegal immigrants try to vote.
You have to keep in mind that these are people who want to remain under the radar. They’re often even afraid to call the police when they’ve been victimized.
A given illegal has very little to gain personally by attempting to vote, and everything to lose. I just don’t understand what their motivation would be.
I also don’t understand what the motivation would be for Democrats to attempt to get them to vote. There are large numbers of legal minorities and poor who don’t currently vote. They constitute a large pool of voters for the Democrats to go after, making the risky solicitation of illegal votes completely unnecessary.
Many people have expressed the sentiment that actual voter fraud is negligble.
By the same token, the percentage of actual people that can’t get an ID is negligble. In fact, the plaintiffs in Marion couldn’t produce a single person who was actually unable to get an ID.
Doesn’t this ignore people who didn’t even bother to try because of the hassle involved?
So if someone wants to buy a gun it is ok for the state to throw any impediments it wants in the way as long as it can be shown anyone legally eligible could get one if they just jump through the hoops?
How could it even be done? Presuming we are talking about a voter fraud with some actual electoral impact, how would it be done? And lets assume from the git-go that we are talking about lefties commiting voter fraud here. Tighty rightys would never ever do such a thing, their respect for the process is, like, total. No way they would ever fuck with something so sacred. Be here all week, tip your veal, try the waitress.
Money? What money, where? The other guys got billionaires, shoving money into fake grassroots groups like Americans for Freedom and Liberty, Free Americans for Liberty, Patriotic Americans for Crunchy Goodness, they got a buttload. The left got diddly squat.
Secrecy. Got keep this on the down low, dial it down to minus five. We ain’t very good at secrecy. Couldn’t even keep Obama’s fanatical devotion to Islam a secret, everybody knows about Obama being on the Harvard Sharia Law Review.
Conspirators. Gonna need bodies, going to register to vote, then going to vote in…what? Ten different polling places in a day? Only place you could possibly get away with that is in the inner city, where people wait three-four hours to vote. How many people would you need to get an extra thousand votes? Couple hundred?
Then you gotta worry about one of them ratting you out to get out from under a parking ticket, or a crack bust.
Then you gotta keep track of who registered where, who voted where. Maybe in the inner city, drugged out hippies voting won’t be noticed. Not in 'burbs. You can trust me on that one.
For what? Suppose you actually get the thousand bogus votes, and the other guy wins by two thousand. Well, fuck. Suppose you get the thousand bogus votes, and your guy wins by two thousand. Well, fuck. Then you get caught, its even worse, you could have had it in the bag, now, you got problems. Sure, it worked for Al Franken, but thats the People’s Republic of Minnesota! And he was running againt Norm Coleman, the only person Garrison Keillor ever actually hated!
Wait, what if it isn’t organized into a conspiracy? What if one guy registers bogus, and tells ten other guys, and they do it, and tell ten more, and pretty soon you’ve got a movement! Oh, no, wait, that’s not a plan, that’s Alice’s Restaraunt. Never mind.
The fraud will never, ever be in the registration and voting. The fraud will be in the counting. Sound familiar?
This post is wrong and so is the video. Here is a link to the actual voter registration form.
Here is the information on the web site:
http://gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/voters/registration-voting
Here is what it says at the DMV:
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/drivers/drivers/apply/doc/proof-resident.htm
There are about 10 different ways to identify yourself for a driver’s license in Wisconsin and it isn’t required to register to vote in Wisconsin any way.
Uncomfortable with this topic, Bricker? Rather talk about something else? Why not liberal hypocrisy, the Old Reliable?
Not about stopping someone from voting. About hindering. Making it more difficult, discouraging. Sure, someone dedicated, determined, can still do it. Is there something in the Constitution about voting rights being dependent upon sincerity and dedication?
No? Well, OK, then, can we move along now?
Exactly. And yet, the people who are oh so concerned about voter fraud have no problem whatsoever with voting on unverifiable black boxes.
It’s weird, they seem to be concentrating huge resources on a possibility that is probably the least likely to alter the outcome of an election while, at the same time, concentrating huge resources on expensive machines that, if subverted, could make a huge difference in the outcome.
If they are so concerned with fraud, then why aren’t they also spending time, effort, and resources on convincing election boards to go back to paper and pencil?
Just because it is implausible doesn’t mean it can’t happen from time to time.
The councilwoman involved here, Leslie Irving, was later found guilty of committing offenses against the electorate and barred permanently from holding elected office in California.
So the video didn’t happen? Was all CGI or something? :rolleyes:
The governor didn’t try to close DMV’s in liberal areas?
Correct, which is why I said implausible rather than impossible, and used the term “meaningful number”. It isn’t even clear from that article whether or not those 6 votes made a difference.
I presume that you agree that the right to vote is conditional on being a citizen and of age, and that voting multiple times is a nono.
Presenting a government-provided photo ID at the time of voting is a pretty sure way to satisfy these conditions. Thus, requiring it is not a violation of the right to vote.
US Supreme Court has ruled in the past that there is a freedom of movement right for citizens to exit/enter the United States. But the US government still requires a passport. Do you object to that as well?
Well, I guess it made a difference for Councilwoman Irving at least.
Photography wasn’t invented till 1827. Willing to bet photo IDs took a lot longer to come around.
It is a wonder the nation ever survived without them.
Completely incorrect as a matter of law – state IDs don’t always cost money directly. And indirect costs are permissible… and kind of funny that you announce a standard that is, legally, utterly wrong while in the same breath telling someone else that their limited understanding is worthy of scorn.
In Harper, the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on the right to vote that were not related to voter qualifications, like a poll tax. But they expressly said that:
Are permitted.
So is a scheme that imposes a minimal burden on voters – a free ID card but a trip to a local DMV with identity proving documents that may cost money, for example-- is such a scheme Constitutional?
Yes, said the Court in Crawford:
The Court went on to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law.