Well, the opposition I usually hear is from the right side.
What does an ID card have to do with proof of residence right?? It proves your identity - that you are over 18/21; it proves your unique identity so as not to confuse you with all the other Joe Jacksons with same day of birth; and it can carry your primary residence.
In other words, do you have a serious argument beyond “fuck that”? The only issue I recognize is the cost for issueing and regularly updating the card - because they have to be tamper-proof, they cost a good fee (plus the picture). But if your country were concerned about getting more people engaged in democracy, then these costs could be defrayed.
On top of all the other problems with this idea that have already been pointed out, there’s a significant cost for the government to issue new IDs to everybody.
Just speaking from the conservative wing of the extreme left…maybe not so bad an idea. If very, very carefully watched!
First off, not mandatory, but convenient. There is no sanction and no presumption about not having one. And they must be freely available at no cost, with every effort to make them accessible. Photo ID. Magnetic strip with access to data, medical records, allergies, donor status, blood type, etc. SS#
Accepted as prima facie evidence of citizenship, for all applications and circumstances. Employers may accept such ID as proof of legality for work with every confidence, and are exempt from any penalty so long as they accept it in good faith.
If a citizen is asked for ID by any law enforcement type whatsoever, and supplies, it must be presumed that said person is a legal resident/citizen and, absent any specific warrants for that person, said law enforcement type must doff his/her hat and wish the citizen God speed.
The ID is valid proof of legal residence and/or citizenship in the USA, period. Showing the card is sufficient registration to vote in any USA jurisdiction on a “same day” basis.
The key is to make them useful, convenient, but not mandatory. You don’t want to carry yours, you can feed it into a woodchipper. Change your mind, get a duplicate at the post office.
History has taught us of the left to be suspicious. As well it might. But useful is useful. And this has possibilities.
FWIW, I had procrastinated in renewing my Driver’s License when I was in school. So I headed to the local DMV and they refused to let me renew with my “home” address. I had to use my school address. Their justification was that that is where the police would look for me should they need to “contact” me.
So for the purpose of the WA DMV at least, college was my legal place of residence. As for voting, my mother always forwarded my ballot to me so I never got an official answer there.
By that standard, most *people *don’t have any vested interest in the town where they live. Most people live where they live because it’s convenient to school, or to work. Should renters be allowed to vote? Should homeowners have to sign a “I promise to stay here for XX years” agreement before they can vote? It’s not as though anyone can’t up and leave at any time.
Sorry. This “the poor won’t vote” argument is something I cannot comprehend.
Here in my nice, poor, third world country poor people in tiny villages at 15000ft a.s.l. get national ID for free The governemnt officials go to prisons, hospitals and even the shut-ins’ houses. I cannot believe that the richest country in the world is incapable of doing it. I think it’s a matter of infatilising and patronising poor people.
No one is infantilizing or patronizing anyone. Just the opposite, actually. We presume and demand more of our poor, especially the rural poor, than they’re capable of doing, where this is concerned.
The richest country in the world is capable of doing it, there are no legitimate reasons why we couldn’t do it.
But we don’t. We have made no effort to do so, even in places where photo ID is already required (at least nominally) to vote. We simply don’t care enough about ensuring full enfranchisement in this country. We don’t care if people don’t vote, we don’t care if people can’t vote.
The simple fact of the matter is that the people who make the rules about who can and can’t vote and the circumstances surrounding voting have already won elections. They know full well that expanding enfranchisement means that they’ll have to work all the harder & spend more money to keep their jobs, so they just aren’t going to do it.
And it’s hard tomignore the facts that it’s Republicans who are pursuing such measures and I’ll of people who would be negatively impacted are perceived to lean heavily Democratic.
Having a large population that lives in the community but can’t vote in that community is very likely to lead to problems, like every other time it has happened in history.
I would actually favor this! Young people obviously have more motive to protect the future than oldsters do. Discussing financial crises with oldsters, I’ve seen them focus on the short-term effect on their portfolio, rather than long-term economic health.
(I am over 55.)
(In the past I’ve also proposed that only female legislators be allowed to vote on abortion-related laws.)