I’m being excessively cranky (and I’ll apologize for that), so I’m going to drop out of this thread (it’s been an irritating month). And now that Scalia has passed, any analysis of the legal issues would involve an immense amount of guesswork, so there’s probably no point in trying to argue over the legal issues. It might be an interesting legal research paper, though.
Exactly. It *sounds * sleazy, whether it is or isn’t. It raises red flags in people’s minds.
Virginia, for example, allows any registered voter to get a voter ID card from their local registrar to use to vote, up to Election Day. I think they mail them out to voters too.
http://elections.virginia.gov/registration/photo-ids-required-to-vote/
That makes it awful hard to say a lack of ID makes it harder to vote. It’s one more step, yes, and they may not be aware of it, but just as registration is required, this is required, and the solution is to make people aware of it and help them get the required document.
Do those qualify as photo ID?
Yes, for voting purposes at least.
As per the webpage, it’s sufficient ID for voting, which is what’s at issue here (which makes sense because otherwise why would the Elections office issue them?). Underlinings mine:
According to the documents, it’s for people who do not already have a valid DL, Passport, government ID, University ID, employer ID. From the application, it does NOT seem to require presenting additional documentation beyond that used to register to vote in the first place.
So it looks like Virginia is heading in the direction of providing dedicated voter-photo-ID , with the likely major issue being *how hard or easy it is to get yourself to a Registration Office to get one. *
I agree that it’s not that hard, however, the question should also be “how important is an ID in the first place?” If there’s no evidence of voter fraud, making people go through one more hoop to vote isn’t called for.
Now here’s the kind of thing we should be fighting against:
.
[QUOTE=Texas Election Code]
Sec. 63.0101. DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION. The following documentation is an acceptable form of photo identification under this chapter:
(1) a driver’s license, election identification certificate, or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety that has not expired or that expired no earlier than 60 days before the date of presentation;
(2) a United States military identification card that contains the person’s photograph that has not expired or that expired no earlier than 60 days before the date of presentation;
(3) a United States citizenship certificate issued to the person that contains the person’s photograph;
(4) a United States passport issued to the person that has not expired or that expired no earlier than 60 days before the date of presentation; or
(5) a license to carry a handgun issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety that has not expired or that expired no earlier than 60 days before the date of presentation.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how anyone can read that and doubt the law’s actual purpose.
Oh, and just for fun, the state does offer a “free” voter ID card. You need a birth certificate special for this purpose. The birth certificate costs $6.00, which sounds about six bucks north of free, to me. (And that is only if you’re born in Texas.)
But, the best part is that you have to present a photo ID when you submit the application to get the birth certificate to get the… photo ID.
Does anyone doubt what the law is actually about?
We can argue about the effect and intent of the laws, but I think it’s clear, and it’s always been clear, that the intent of the LAWMAKERS who advocate for and pass them is to reduce the influence of demographics who don’t generally vote for them. Just look at the other laws they’ve been passing, like doing away with early voting.
Now, you may say that their intent shouldn’t have any value in the discussion if the laws themselves are sound, and people have certainly done that. But I think it has to be acknowledged that Republican lawmakers are being, at the very best, right for the wrong reasons.
Of course. But it’s stupid to oppose that by appearing to be wrong, even for the right reasons.
In re: the Catch-22 of needing photo ID to get a birth certificate. We do know that identity theft is a real problem. How do you start the process of proving who you really are?
Yes! And that applies even without voter ID. It’s common in many states.
Registration should be easy. One should be able to register at the DMV, not just a registrar, and by mail. And one should be able to VOTE by mail. A few states do this with no problems. It’s much cheaper too.
In Washington State, voting by mail is not just an option, it’s the default. (I tend to drop mine off directly at the county courthouse, but the principle is the same.)
The sky has not fallen, and actual voting places exist for the tiny minority who prefer them.
The sky has not fallen for YOU. For some people who formerly enjoyed a private vote that canceled their father’s or husband’s, or who used to not vote at all, maybe a different story but not one you’ll see on the evening news.