Nitpick: It is possible to have a US passport and not be a citizen of the US if you are from American Samoa.
Not that too many folks in this catagory are trying to sneak into Missouri and vote, though I think Missouri did once have some trouble with some Kansans trying to sneak in and vote.
This is a non sequitur. Folks can get educated by talking to co-workers, or by listening to the radio on the way to and from work, or by having the television on in the background as they make their kids’ lunches, or by deciding that one party is the right one for them and voting a party ticket, or by any other number of ways. It has nothing to do with how much time it takes to get the paperwork.
It comes down to this: you’re proposing a hurdle to voting, and it is (I hope) uncontroversial that any hurdle to voting will lower the number of voters to some degree. To persuade me that the hurdle is necessary, you must show that it’s a lesser evil than the evil the hurdle prevents, AND that there’s no lesser hurdle that would prevent the same evil.
The New York Times had a great editorial on this issue yesterday. Why do I call it “great”? Because it basically reiterated the arguments I’d already made in this thread :).
Daniel
There are people who don’t know where they were born?
DMV’s will issue ID cards that look like drivers’ licenses.
Some probably, but more importantly they may not know the address of the County Clerk’s office in another state, or want to spend money on long distance calls while being put on hold and transferred among half a dozen departments.
Yes, all you need to do is figure out how to drag your 80 year old ass down to the DMV. Do you take the $45 cab ride, public transportation (hah! in most of the US), or maybe they can just call you.
Sometimes (ever hear of adoption?)- more frequently though there are people who’s birth certificates just don’t exist. Anecdotally, I know a few people under these exact circumstances.
In Missouri, it’s not free - thus it’s a form of poll tax.
You and the NYT continue to ignore the 600+ illegal votes, and 4,700 questionable registrations from the Loretta Sanchez vs. Bob Dornan campaign for Congress. That is one Congressionally reviewed example. Who knows how many more we would find if we started looking. People who have NO right to vote DO vote. Their votes cancel out mine. This should be stopped.
My point on paperwork was NOT a non-sequiter at all. The opponents of this brought up the horrible, horrible time impact of getting a birth certificate. Now, I can get mine from the US State Department with a letter and a check for $30 (and I already discussed the $30). I can get my kids from the State of California with a letter and a check as well. This is NOT that hard.
The USSC already found no problem in getting a photo ID for voting. I don’t see citizenship as being that much more of a barrier.
Now, if you have an alternative proposal to ensure that only those allowed to vote do vote - please let us know what it is.
There wouldn’t be a problem if these documents could be gained freely, quickly by everyone. But that’s not the world we live in.
So Missouri needs to offer and ID free to those who can not afford one, like Indiana (and many other states).
So fix that part while others try to clean up the voter rolls.
They do NOT need to be free to all, just affordable to all. They are already available quickly (less than a month for most documents).
I will waive my hands and make it so. The problem is - they don’t and have no plan to offer one.
I could’ve sworn the Supreme Court had already decided that if the ability to vote relies on a document that costs the potential voter money, it amounts to a poll tax.
And I already agreed that they should.
You seem to continue to ignore the problem of non-eligible people voting however.
Indiana’s law passed muster, and they have ways for the indigent to vote.
Again - Missouri needs to come up to Indiana’s levels (since we know that those are deemed fine by the Supremes).
Yes they should… the problem is they’re not. It’s another stupid law that’ll end up getting tossed out in the state supreme court and cost the state money to defend.
The question is not whether any one can get enough proof to vote. The question is for what group of people would it be most difficult. If you came from New Orleans and got flooded out ,it might be difficult to obtain sufficient proof. If you are old and frail and don’t know how to get things done .it may be a problem. if you are poor and lack transportation or a computer it may be difficult. Even the cost of documentation can be troublesome.
I went to the license bureau a couple days ago The sign said they were serving No, 34 . I pulled number 88. I was there for hours. I had a passport so I had no problem. But when I got the passport I had to obtain a new birth certificate. As I remember it took quite a while to show up after I applied on line. It cost money… The passport was relatively expensive.
Poor people,uneducated people who have difficulty understanding the system, those without transportation and the old and frail have difficulties with the process. Most of these people are likely Democratic voters. That makes the move less about preventing voter fraud than making it difficult for likely democrats to vote.
Once AGAIN, you are ignoring the 600+ illegal votes and 4,700 questionable registrations in just one election in California.
You are worried about the poor not being able to prove who they are (the same poor that someone can cash checks, have credit cards, etc.) - I am worried about people who have NO right to vote cancelling out my ballot. Since those people are likely to vote Democrat, I can see what you want to keep the fraud going.
Not at all. It just is not true. There has been very little evidence of bad voting. Yet this cure you want will disenfranchise many ,many voters. It is a cure for a problem which does not exist. It also is a problem for specific groups of people.
I admit to only reading half of this thread but I was tagged as a US citizen the moment I was born. I have a social security number and by God any Federal or state government will find you eventually.
I don’t get the proof of ID as a sticking point at all. You need to be a legal citizen of the United States to vote. Why is this a hard concept to understand? I need a valid drivers license to operate a motor vehicle. Voting for the President of the United States requires less?
I have given proof of bad voting in just one Congressional district in just one election. The problem exists.
You have given nothing, other than claims that there are apparently a bunch of voters out there with no form of identification or proof who will be disenfranchised. The folks who argued in front of the USSC for Indiana did not have any evidence either - that is why they lost (with even Stevens joining in the majority).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html?ref=todayspaper Heres a NYT times article saying the same thing. The point not to get a clean election but to cut down on the poor people from voting. Were you at sleep during the Florida fiasco when the Repubs broomed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls. They had no interest in making the election fair. They were doing everything possible to eliminate potential democrats. It is not about fraud.