My state accepts expired driver’s licenses and a whole host of other documents for purposes of welfare eligibility, but not for voting. Since the social workers accept other documents, they generally don’t see helping somebody get ID as a necessary function of their office.
Gosh, that’s a very confident post. Which examples of fraud, exactly, do you think would be prevented via voter ID laws? Keep in mind that these laws don’t tend to apply to absentee ballots, for obvious reasons. Keep in mind also that I specified “modern times,” which I think generously includes the past half-century, and less generously includes the past quarter-century.
Turns out what I said was precisely accurate. I accept your absentee apology.
That term obviously doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Which of the methods of election fraud identified in that article would be curtailed by photo ID, though? Nobody disputes that election fraud takes place, but the article is mostly discussing methods that are not susceptible to voter ID.
For example, “visiting every hotel and flophouse in the West Side ward to pay for votes” gets people to the polling places who may very well have ID, can prove they are who they say they are, and still cast a vote the way they were paid to. Casting absentee ballots for fictional, nonexistent, or deceased ward residents is indeed a time-honored method of fraud; nobody ever sees the IDs for absentee voters, so requiring voter ID for in-person votes does what to stem this method? “[A] Democratic election judge and her daughter, a Republican election judge in the same precinct, permitted Howard to cast a ballot for another family member”–those election judges would be the same people checking IDs, so if they’re corrupt, what good does the ID do?
Voter ID solves the problem of people who show up at the polls in person and claim to be somebody else, without the knowledge/collusion of the election staff. That’s the only problem it solves. Where are the examples of this particular type of fraud occurring?
You live in what, Kansas?
I don’t.
So perhaps this sort of problem varies from state to state?
I grew up poorer than most. If I was late with a library book I was either gathering soda bottles, recycling cans, or scrimping up change from food stamp purchases to pay the fine. After one or two events I changed my behavior. Mammals can adapt.
Proper maintenance is not responsible? Driving a car that isn’t properly maintained at highway speed in rainy conditions is negligent.
I just realized something remarkable about this paragraph. You’re suggesting that the government, when confronted with citizens worrying about a nonexistent problem, is acting legitimately when it enacts a program that makes it harder to exercise constitutional rights. But if they tell people that the problem they’re worrying about is nonexistent, that’s overstepping their limits.
As a teacher, sometimes I deal with students worried about cooties. Presumably I could spend 5 minutes of recess each day making my students line up for cootie shots–but if I told them that cooties weren’t a thing, I’d be reprimanded.
Its a card that you can use for SNAP and TANF benefits.
They are basically debit cards.
That’s the card i was talking about.
On the whole, I think everyone SHOULD have a photo ID card and the fact that you have a bunch of states where you can get them for free now is probably a good thing.
I was just trying to make a point about burdens.
No, and nothing I have written could possibly justify you thinking that I am implying that.
That’s not my point of view.
Note: I said it’s not an *extra *burden, which is what was suggested. I did say it’s harder to shoulder for the poor, which you’re right, is a larger burden. But not extra.
Who cares? That’s part of the price of owning a car. If you can’t fulfill those responsibilities, then you shouldn’t have a car, poor OR wealthy. It probably sucks for the poor that they’re required to you know, have liability insurance, or a car that’s in good repair, but I don’t see why that matters. Most of those laws are there to protect OTHERS when you do something squirrely like cause an accident, or don’t keep your beater in good enough repair to not pollute like a tire fire.
Library books are no different- the fines and what-not are there to protect the library and other people’s ability to check out books and avail themselves of the library. Again, it probably sucks for a poor person to pay fines and stuff, but if you can’t pay the fines, don’t check the books out.
It’s not a hard concept, and I’m still baffled as to how people are still bending over backward to say that these examples of clear-cut and simple responsibility are somehow beyond the ability of poor people to perform. It’s almost as if you believe that being poor makes it acceptable to be irresponsible, which seems awfully paternalistic and condescending. They’re not 3 year olds, you know.
Poor people who make bad decisions also inflict much worse consequences on everyone else, because they cannot or will not give priority to mitigating the damage they have caused. A rich person who loses a library book is faced with less of a punishment because the rich person does less damage to the library if he pays to replace it.
I think you are making an unfair comparison. Conservatives can’t be expected to meet the expectations we have for young school children.
They’re not ID cards. There is no identifying information on them other than a name. They can not be used as ID’s. I am baffled why you think they’d be an adequate substitute, particularly since, in my state, you get ONE issued for the entire household. Soooo… only the person who usually does the grocery shopping gets to vote?
In theory, my spouse could have used it, too, even though it doesn’t have his name on it, since he’s part of the same household but we never tried it. Really, I don’t think you’re idea of using a “welfare card” as an ID is workable.
In my state they aren’t free. In fact, they cost MORE than a driver’s license in my state, unless you’re a senior or disabled. ($20 for the ID vs. $17.50 for a license valid 6 years).
I work with poor people and I have never once in 25 years ever come across a person who I could not get a free ID for. There are programs in place to prevent this. It requires some effort on the part of the person though, but it’s in no shape or form a hardship.
I have come across more aliens that have no right to vote that are registered and doing so though, so anyone who says this is not a problem is incorrect.
I don’t understand how voting ID and library cards are even together in this thread. They are so fundamentally different that sticking them together is just silly.
Voting is a right and a privilege and as such there should be little to no barriers between people voting. Don’t need ID, don’t need anything. If and when voter fraud in the form that requiring ID becomes rampant, we can readdress it there, but I have read a million of these threads and the most vocal proponent of voter ID laws has never been able to come up with a real reason to require them. It’s just I WANNA which I don’t is a valid reason.
Library cards on the other hand are solely a privilege and as such, yes, should be yanked away if you show you can’t handle it. The very first thing my parents and my teachers told me was, it was a responsibility and it was MY responsibility. It is a great way to start teaching kids responsibility, even if their parents are total fuckups. If you can’t get your ass to the library to return books, then I agree, you should not be borrowing them. Plus, aren’t there school libraries? Maybe we could lower the fines a bit but not remove them. I pay my fines when my books are overdue, even when I couldn’t afford them. This is one of those things that I think it’s crazy we’re even considering excusing just because you’re poor. So only middle class kids have to pay for their overdue books? Screw that noise, the library is a public resource.
I have worked with the poor and disadvantage for over 25 years and like most things this problem is very complex.
First of all there are indeed people who are born losers. I hate to use that term, but there are people that are born into situations where unless you physically remove them from their environment and cut them off from their relatives, they have no chance of ever making it.
Of course we would never do that today.
There are also people that are poor that have wasted their chances. But those chances don’t come along often and are not always recognized. I know a woman who is 48 years old and wants to change, but honestly, it will not happen. She has blown every chance, and lost all friends and family, granted most, if not all of it, was through her own fault. Still I give her credit for keep trying.
But one thing I noticed in the many years I worked with poor and criminals is the fact that now we and they accept things that they never did.
Shame and ostracism are two of the most effective ways humans have to change behavior, now we are loathe to use either to change people, but it does work.
When I started 25+ years ago, no one wanted to be known as a criminal nor associate with one. Then it went form that to, “Yeah I did it but I learned my lesson,” to “Yeah I did it but it wasn’t my fault” to "Yeah I did it so what?
And I am not criminalizing poor people as most are not criminals, but I do worth a lot with both so they do share certain things.
Of course there are some people that are lazy, I just recently worked with a 19 year old who’s mother was exasperated with him. I took him by the hand got him in community college and a part time job at a hotel. He is doing well in both, “B” average in college and his employer told me what an outstanding job he does and how well liked he is.
Now, I did nothing he couldn’t have done nor his mother done, but he was too lazy and she was too overwhelmed.
So it does work both ways, some poor are lazy and some are not lazy at all, and some just don’t know where to start.
As George Burns once said, “You’ll find as you go through life, luck is nothing more than having the financial resources to overcome one’s bad choices.” And he was right, this is why rich people seem to have all the luck.
The amount of people who possess an ID already is a known quantity. The amount of people eligible to vote is a known quantity. With those two numbers it is possible to determine the number of disenfranchised citizens by raising the requirements to vote.
Given that, what evidence has been presented for the size of ‘this problem’? Your anecdote is not compelling. It’s not do difficult to establish a reasonable figure, watch, I’ll show you how it’s done:
“Good afternoon ma’am, my name is Sitnam and I am calling on behalf of a nonprofit called Citizens United Against Voter Fraud. May I have a moment of your time? Is your name Jane Doe of 123 Whatcha-ma-call-it Road, Who-sa-what-sit Town? Great. I have in front of the me the public official voting rolls of your county and it’s indicated that someone under your name voted in the previous election. Did you vote? No ma’am, it does not say who you voted for, that would be illegal, but that a person under your name did vote is available to anyone at your local country courthouse. Oh, you did, great well have a wonderful day.”
Done. Rinse, repeat, until enough evidence is presented that people are standing in line to commit a felony for a possible sentence of $10,000 and 3 years in jail to impersonate one voter. That is what is required to even potentially legitimately disenfranchise Americans.