Indeed and there is a point which is to make it harder for people likely to vote against them unable to vote. No one has shown a voting fraud problem of any type in Tennessee much less one that sways elections.
I wouldn’t even have called it a tie, and in any case I’m not a citizen of Kentucky so it’s none of my business. It doesn’t mean I can’t point out that it’s stupid.
In Dallas, TX there is a good amount of write-in ballot fraud for the local & state elections in the poorer districts. Has been going on for decades and they have a nice system worked out. So voter fraud is definately there–and most likley in your community too.
The issue should be more on how absentee or write-in ballots are screened for validity. The actual and potential corruption is there esp now that more are using this method to vote.
I have not seen any reports that indicate wide-spread corruption at actual polling locations.
Well, having lived in Indiana at the time the voter ID law was passed, I recall that that law was one of Mitch Daniels’s top priorities when he took office as governor. Another one of his top priorities, and one that he was able to do by executive order, was closing a bunch of BMV branches. And many of the BMV branches that he closed were in places that were traditionally democratic. Like Gary, Indiana, a democratic stronghold, where he closed the only license branch in the city, a branch that had issued 65,000 licenses the year before, and the only branch Gary residents could reach by public transportation. So yeah, I remember it being a pretty fucking transparent attempt to disenfranchise democrats.
(After the huge outcry, he couldn’t come up with a good reason to have closed the Gary branch, and was forced to open a “limited” BMV branch in downtown Gary. But his intent was clear.)
And the problem with being proactive is what?
Obvious, I have no issue with requiring an ID for voting. I already have to provide an ID in so many other activities, it seems silly to me that an activity this important would not require one.
It is a constitutional right for one thing. I would think the people should be given the widest latitude possible in exercising that right…particularly one as fundamental to a democracy as voting. The state has a compelling interest in preventing voter fraud but they need to (or should IMO) show why a particular law that will have an effect to suppress voting, particularly voting of a distinct group, is necessary. “Proactive” is not “necessary” in this case.
For another what is “proactive” about it? Apparently they have had no serious issues with it. Do they all of a sudden expect a problem to arise?
What is wrong with taking steps to protect the validity of their elections?
Well…there is the right to keep and bear arms. Yet we require ID to buy them in most places…and even to have to register the things.
I agree that it seems to be a solution looking for a problem, but I don’t see the big deal in requiring people to have some ID in order to vote. But then, ISTM that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion from the other end as well…as if there are a large number of people who participate in our society and do so with no form of ID. As if ‘poor’ people who are US citizens have no form of ID. These supposed people (and we aren’t talking about a few folks living on Appalachian dirt farms here, or some other bucolic rural setting) don’t use the bank system, don’t cash checks, don’t drive, don’t purchase alcohol or any other controlled (legal) substances, don’t own firearms or any of the other myriad things that the rest of us need ID for to function in our society as it is today…and yet they fervently wish to participate in our democracy and vote?? I’m not buying it.
But I also don’t see that voter fraud at the polls is a major issue, so I guess it all works out.
-XT
I guess one of the questions that needs to be asked, does the Tennessee Photo ID process require documentation confirming legal residence?
Well…
I’d say those numbers are not insignificant.
Also, as noted above they can make access to places to get identification difficult as well (bit not difficult for their kind of people).
As easy as it is to order a certified birth certificate - I’m not buying it.
I would wager many of these “citizens” prefer not to be identified or desire to fly under the radar screen. Fine, but by doing so you may not be able to cast a vote - but it’s by your own decision
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I’d say those numbers are not insignificant.
Also, as noted above they can make access to places to get identification difficult as well (bit not difficult for their kind of people).
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, those are the same numbers cited earlier (or maybe the same ones I saw when I did a quick Google search…sorry, writing this in an air port on an iPad). The thing is, I find it hard to believe that 7 or 12% of Americans don’t drive, don’t cash checks (if they make $25k/year or less, is that all paid in cash?), don’t buy alcohol or buy cigarettes from stores, etc etc. And that, not participating in society to the extent that they don’t do any of those things (because they can’t, not having any picture ID), they then fervently want to participate in our democracy by voting and then being turned down because they have no ID. I mean, we are talking about only 40-50% of voting age citizens who DO vote, regardless of whether they have picture ID or whatever. I’m finding it hard to believe that people who can’t or won’t get the ID they need to conduct every day life are going to be heavily represented amongst the less than half the citizens who actually bother to go out and vote at all.
-XT
It is not ok to deny rights on the basis of, “Well, you probably wouldn’t exercise that right anyway.”
What about my right to keep and bear arms? You are probably ok with denying me that right if I don’t have proper ID…correct? Hell, you are probably ok with denying me that right based on just a tortured (to me) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
-XT
None of our rights in the Constitution are absolute.
Free speech is circumscribed in a number of ways for instance.
That is fine when the state can show a compelling interest in doing so.
That said I think the restrictions should be as minimal as possible to achieve the desired goal.
Preventing voter fraud is a rational goal for the state to have. It should be the least intrusive means possible to achieve that goal however.
In Tennessee we have a more restrictive measure being put in place but it will not substantially reduce voter fraud because it is not much of a problem (if any) to begin with. The less restrictive regime worked fine.
Note: IANAL and making no claims to what a state “must” do to meet constitutional muster. Just expressing my opinion.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
None of our rights in the Constitution are absolute.
[/QUOTE]
Seemingly so…which means that requiring someone to have proper ID when voting is not an issue (it doesn’t seem to have been rated as un-Constitutional in any case, based on earlier posts by others in this thread).
Agreed.
I’ve seen no compelling evidence that voter fraud at the polls is a major issue in Tennessee, so I agree.
Me too, which is why I generally avoid these more legalistic threads, or just lurk to see what the consensus of the legal beagle 'dopers is…if I can keep my eyes from glazing over at some of the explanations…
-XT
The time to do that is when registering, not when voting.
Been a long time since I was a Tennessee resident (at that time the driver’s license was paper and did not include a photo) so I’m not sure what the current ID or voter registration requirements are.
I do know that in Texas, you are required to prove legal residence in order to get a Driver’s License/State ID. Texas is also in the final stages of the process of passing a voter ID requirement as well.
Tennessee drivers’ licenses are still issued by county agencies, so the requirements may not even be standardized.
But what would happen in TN if you moved? God, I had an incorrect address on my license for two years before I changed it. Guess what. I just moved again. 