# Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971 "2012-05-24T17:25:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/101 "2012-05-26T11:22:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Not at all. A poll tax is forbidden by the 24th Amendment. > > Now, maybe you’re using the phrase in some personal sense. Perhaps you have a personal belief that they are “morally” a poll tax. But I don’t agree, and neither does the US Supreme Court. While you can of course dismiss my opinion as easily as I dismiss yours, the Supremes actually get to decide the law. > > And they have made it quite clear that voter ID laws are not a poll tax. Crawford v. Marion County. > > I think that abortion should be considered to be murder. But you won’t find me saying that abortion is murder. Because I recognize that, contrary to my personal beliefs, the law does not agree with me. > > In another thread, **BrainGlutton** is insisting that conservatives can’t accept facts, while liberals can. This is a good example to bring to his attention. You can’t accept what the law says. Let me get you to repeat this. You’re saying a fee the government charges someone to vote (ID and supporting documentation fees to get it), are not poll taxes? This isn’t some fuzzy life begins line. This is factually a barrier that disenfranchises voters. If one boxer knees the other in the testicles in a Queensberry rule match, does that cease to be a below the belt foul if the ref doesn’t call it? In other words instead of citing a body known for ruling raciest segregation wasn’t discriminatory (Plessy\_v.\_Ferguson), you have to explain why requiring some voters to pay fees to vote isn’t a poll tax. Sometimes the supreme court gets things wrong. Further your abortion example is a nonstarter anyway. The supreme court never ruled on whether abortion is murder. It ruled on privacy rights. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/102 "2012-05-26T13:14:11Z")
In my state, at least, the new law is disenfranchising people. I’m not talking about it making it more difficult. I’m not talking about having to walk 250 feet instead of 50 feet. I’m talking about requirements that they are unable to meet. The Pennsylvania ACLU (ooohhh.. the evil librul ACLU :eek:) is representing some of those people. [http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm](http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm) Here are just two examples. There are more at that link: > [@](#): > > Wilola Lee, 59, Philadelphia Ms. Lee is an African-American woman born in rural Wilkerson County, Georgia. She was raised by her grandmother, who moved her to Philadelphia in 1957, where she has lived ever since. Ms. Lee finished the eleventh grade, married, and raised two children, one of whom is a former school principal and now works for the Pennsylvania state government. Ms. Lee worked for the Philadelphia Public Schools for many years, including work with special needs children. Her husband passed away six years ago. Ms. Lee has been voting for decades and worked as a poll worker in the city of Philadelphia. **She has been trying for nearly ten years to get a birth certificate that she will need to get a photo ID to vote, but the state of Georgia has told her they have no record of her birth.** Ms. Lee does not have and has been unable to obtain photo identification required by Pennsylvania’s Photo ID Law, and thus after voting in nearly every election for more than 30 years, she will be unable to do so in November. > > Grover Freeland, 72, Philadelphia Mr. Freeland is an African-American man born in Buffalo, NY. He is a U.S. Army Veteran who was drafted in 1964 and served two years stateside before being honorably discharged. He thereafter graduated with a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters degree from Philadelphia’s University of the Arts. Mr. Freeland worked many jobs over the years, including in his own photography businesses, until 2004, when he retired. He is formerly married and has five children. He believes that if a person is good enough to put his life on the line in the army then he should be able to vote. Mr. Freeland has not had a drivers’ license since the 1980’s. His only photo ID card is what is known as a “veterans card,” which is issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. While it contains encoded information on sensitive matters, like his medical records, the card is not recognized as valid by Pennsylvania’s voter photo ID Law. **Mr. Freeland has tried unsuccessfully to retrieve his birth certificate, which he will need to get a photo ID acceptable to vote, from the state of New York.** Consequently, come November this veteran of the U.S. Armed Services will be unable to show the requisite identification and will not be able to vote. I know what the likely response to this will be. Oh, that’s a shame but it’s only a few people. It’s statistically meaningless. That is the ultimate in big government thinking. Sacrifice a few to protect the greater good. That’s now how we do things is this country. Individual rights are paramount. We don’t just dismiss people as “outliers”. The Pennsylvania constitution guarantees the right to vote. These good decent hardworking Americans are having that right yanked away from them. Apparently so that the rest of us can experience some warm fuzzy feelings of confidence. Honestly, I’m appalled at the arguments being put forth by certain individuals in this thread. The Republican party has become a cancer in this country. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/103 "2012-05-26T13:26:02Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Let me get you to repeat this. You’re saying a fee the government charges someone to vote (ID and supporting documentation fees to get it), are not poll taxes?. If the government charges a fee for an ID, and you need that ID to vote, that is a poll tax. But that’s where the line is drawn. In other words, if the ID itself is free, then the mere fact that there may be incidental expenses does not create a poll tax. A poll tax doesn’t arise because someone needs to take a bus ride to get the ID, any more than it would t you have to take a bus ride to get to the polling place. So I would oppose any voter ID scheme where the state did not provide free IDs. But supporting documentation? No, as long as there’s a reasonable list of acceptable documentation. (A state that insisted on a notarized long-form birth certificate would not be reasonable.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/104 "2012-05-26T13:41:36Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > It seems to me that there are three issues at play in this thread that could be said to cast doubt on elections as a true measure of the will of the people: > > 1. Human factors and technical issues. These are the kinds of things that happened in Florida in 2000; butterfly ballots, hanging chads, ambiguous markings, absentee deadlines, recount rules, etc. What would you say the accuracy of a modern U.S. election is, 99.99%, maybe? That’s one error in ten-thousand votes. With 5.8 million total votes between Bush and Gore, that’s an uncertainty of 580 votes. Want to increase confidence in election results? Put your effort into pushing that number closer to 100% > > 2. Voter fraud. At worst, this is a small problem, and voter ID laws would not prevent all the fraud. > > 3. People who would vote, but can’t because of voter ID laws. We’re human beings, and the things we create are never perfect. Our elections aren’t 100% accurate, and attempts to identify ineligible voters won’t be either. There are reports coming out of Florida right now of eligible voters being wrongly sent notices that they’re to be stricken from the roles. And somewhere there’s a person who can’t spare the time off work to go across town to get a certified copy of his birth certificate so he can wait in another line to get a voter ID with his picture on it, even if it is free. I doubt there are very many people in those situations; a mere handful. But you’ve said that the voter ID laws will restore confidence in those elections with a razor thin margin, and so it’s fair to say that the negative effects of those laws will also come into play in those same razor-thin elections. Would you disenfranchise 100 eligible voters to prevent 99 cases of fraud; and if so, why should that give us more confidence in the results as a measure of the will of the people? > > I don’t understand why someone would ignore point #1, endorse point #2, and dismiss point #3. > > And as has been mentioned in another election-related thread: > > 1. The chief elections officer in a state is allowed to be the campaign chair for one of the candidates. Currently, this is Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, co-chair of Mitt Romney’s campaign in that state. There may be others. Now, I can’t point to any specific instance of fraud that he has perpetrated, but the issue is one of confidence. I’d have a lot more confidence in the results if the man running the election weren’t also working to elect a specific candidate. Would you, **Bricker** , join in a call for Bennett to step down as Arizona Secretary of State, and to pass laws to prevent such a conflict of interest in the future? The problem you raise in step 4 is a legitimate one. And yes, I would. But I’d go further – since the position is political, the mere fact that we forbid such overt mixing of advocacy and neutrality is foolish. I would support a scheme to have the election process itself run in every state by as neutral an authority as can be found – maybe a board appointed by the state supreme court, or even better a pool of people selected by the state supreme court, ten names, with the board composed of three names drawn at random from that pool. As to point 1 – again, I agree. Measures that move that number closer to 100% are the right idea. And I’d support such measures. With respect to point 2, I have already responded that my argument is not based on the number of current cases. Finally with respect to point 3, I don’t believe it’s appropriate to simply weigh the effect of the number of people affected. Instead I weigh the reasonableness of the measures imposed. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/105 "2012-05-26T13:43:00Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > That’s now how we do things is this country. Sigh. That should read "That’s \*\*no_t_ \*\*how we do things is this country. A righteous rant ruined by a typo that reverses the meaning. ☹ Maybe a mod can correct it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/106 "2012-05-26T13:49:27Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > In my state, at least, the new law is disenfranchising people. I’m not talking about it making it more difficult. I’m not talking about having to walk 250 feet instead of 50 feet. I’m talking about requirements that they are unable to meet. > > The Pennsylvania ACLU (ooohhh.. the evil librul ACLU :eek:) is representing some of those people. > [http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm](http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm) > Here are just two examples. There are more at that link: > I know what the likely response to this will be. Oh, that’s a shame but it’s only a few people. It’s statistically meaningless. > > That is the ultimate in big government thinking. Sacrifice a few to protect the greater good. That’s now how we do things is this country. Individual rights are paramount. We don’t just dismiss people as “outliers”. > > The Pennsylvania constitution guarantees the right to vote. These good decent hardworking Americans are having that right yanked away from them. Apparently so that the rest of us can experience some warm fuzzy feelings of confidence. > > Honestly, I’m appalled at the arguments being put forth by certain individuals in this thread. The Republican party has become a cancer in this country. Why doesn’t Ms. Lee sign an affidavit that she has no photo ID, provide two proofs of residence, such as a deed, lease, tax bill, or utility bill, and get her ID that way, as allowed under Pennsylvania law? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/107 "2012-05-26T14:08:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why doesn’t Ms. Lee sign an affidavit that she has no photo ID, provide two proofs of residence, such as a deed, lease, tax bill, or utility bill, and get her ID that way, as allowed under Pennsylvania law? Can she? Do you have a cite for that? The ACLU seems to think that these people have no recourse. Who’s correct here? I don’t honestly know. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/108 "2012-05-26T14:38:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I know for a fact that there is voter fraud. I have been a victim of it once and I know non-citizens who vote in Phoenix because to register you simply have to say your a citizen. At best current voter ID laws only prove residency. As I pointed out earlier, that is a problem with the undelying voter registration requirements. Voter ID laws do nothing to address those; the point is to prevent people who _aren’t_ registered from voting. If you want to make sure voters are citizens, the time to ask them to prove it is when they register, not at the last minute. The former is a sensible restriction designed to prevent fraud. The latter is a veiled attempt to exclude a number of votes at a stage when it’s too late to do anything about it. ---
**Author:** ![supery00n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@supery00n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supery00n)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/109 "2012-05-26T14:46:09Z")
It doesn’t matter if there is “rampant” fraud or only a little bit. How do you know that the Republican demographic isn’t benefiting from fraud? It’s a safe bet that the population of people who are registered to vote _probably_ needed some form of identification in order to do so. Are you not aware that voter fraud is actually a crime? Unfortunately, people from both sides will and have resorted to dirty tricks for partisan purposes (e.g. Watergate). Electoral fraud on that scale by high-level officials and electoral fraud at the level of voting when you are not an American citizen are crimes only different in their degree. I think it’s important to realize that there are many aspects of life that are systemically unfair, and that in that case, questioning the system and fighting for change is almost an obligation on the part of the people; i.e. racial “literacy tests.” But in a case where the system is truly fair and impartial, the law needs to be upheld in that case, and that means that the law needs to be enforced. To say that voter fraud is a partisan issue is absurd. If identity theft is a crime, then misrepresenting yourself or voting on behalf of someone else is also a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/110 "2012-05-26T16:19:32Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Can she? Do you have a cite for that? The ACLU seems to think that these people have no recourse. Who’s correct here? I don’t honestly know. Well, [here is a link](http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/voterid/VoterAffirmationNoProofofID.pdf) to the affidavit that she’d need. 25 PS 3050 even provides that a person who can’t do that is still entitled to cast a provisional ballot. I haven’t read the ACLU’s court brief, but I suspect they contend asking someone to sign that affidavit is too burdensome, or traveling to a PennDOT office to deliver it and get the free ID is too burdensome. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/111 "2012-05-26T21:39:59Z")
All of this could be better analyzed if we had the most recent statistics on the confidence of the electorate. Go a long way to convincing me of the necessity for all of this if we could just have a reading on the Electorate Confidence Index. Assuming such a thing exists, of course. **Bricker**? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/112 "2012-05-26T23:58:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As I pointed out earlier, that is a problem with the undelying voter registration requirements. Voter ID laws do nothing to address those; the point is to prevent people who _aren’t_ registered from voting. If you want to make sure voters are citizens, the time to ask them to prove it is when they register, not at the last minute. The former is a sensible restriction designed to prevent fraud. The latter is a veiled attempt to exclude a number of votes at a stage when it’s too late to do anything about it. So if the same laws were rewritten for voter ID, but to require them at the point of registration instead - you would be OK with it? We would have to re-register everyone to get started, and the people who are going to be hurting now would still be hurting for a lack of identification. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/113 "2012-05-27T00:27:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > All of this could be better analyzed if we had the most recent statistics on the confidence of the electorate. Go a long way to convincing me of the necessity for all of this if we could just have a reading on the Electorate Confidence Index. Assuming such a thing exists, of course. **Bricker**? Cloudy, with a chance of fraud. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/114 "2012-05-27T03:44:57Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > So if the same laws were rewritten for voter ID, but to require them at the point of registration instead - you would be OK with it? We would have to re-register everyone to get started, and the people who are going to be hurting now would still be hurting for a lack of identification. When we went to the voter-ID system in the 1980 election, _everyone who was already registered was grandfathered in:_ if you were already a current-status voter in the Elections Commission’s system (voted in the prior 4 years), you got the picture ID with just minimal evidence that you are the Mr. Juan Doe from Upsala Street who votes at the Huyke Middle School. One thing we need to figure out is exactly what is the primary issue a legitimate voter-ID system is suposed to address: Multiple voting? District poaching (people claiming to have moved to an address in another district in order to swing it)? Voting by noncitizens? Voting by ineligible citizens? Franchise misappropriation (someone else votes in your name)? As it stands, most state IDs are historically not considered “proof of citizenship” and most proofs of citizenship (passport, COLB) are not proofs of residence. Even here, with our standardized official voter ID, it is merely proof-of-registration and a LOT of the info you are supposed to give upon registration is presumed in good faith: e.g. nobody crosschecks “1060 W. Addison” on the spot. Parties CAN challenge addresses on the _published_ voter list BUT only BEFORE close of registration, so that the challenged voter has time to respond or correct the address. Not at the polls themselves. We do provide a system of free-of-charge sworn/witness statements for the purpose of covering for some missing documents; HS students who will be18 in time for the next electoral event may get registered in a voter drive at the school the previous semester using the info on their school records if they (or their parents, if not quite yet 18 during the drive) so authorize. In our local experience, which of course YMMV as to how portable it is to other places: - District poaching has been noted as a real issue. Now, you can’t outlaw someone who is a valid registered voter properly filing a change of address cutting it tight to the close of registration, State ID does nothing to prevent it if you remember to change address on that ID too. But honestly it’s a PITA to do this in enough numbers to really change results Over There w/o hurting your results Over Here (ticking off your own party’s candidate Over Here) and getting caught (just happened, in the primary). We also have the converse issue of people NOT changing their address and continuing to be registered to vote in the family homestead years after leaving. These ARE all eligible voters, voting only once, just that the address on the ID does not match reality. - The ID card so far has done _nothing_ to prevent franchise misappropriation because the key factor there is not individuals showing up to take your place but _ **crooked poll workers** _ manipulating the list, by marking off your name to block you from voting, or, more commonly, holding off on it and at the end of the day marking dozens of no-shows as having voted to make it square with an inflated tally (or even actual old-school stuffed ballots). If there’s no recount nobody ever notices. - Voting by _non_citizens here is not considered of significance by our Elections Commissioners because on the one hand of course the law-abiding noncitizens will not do it and endanger their status; and on the other the risk/benefit equation is not worth it for the illegal noncitizens to call attention to themselves in this manner (someone obviously not from here, going to a government office with skeevy papers) for so little payoff. An\* indocumentado\* needs to take chances to get a hot Green Card/SSC/DL, not a hot voter card. - Since the only “citizens, over 18 years of age, residents of PR” who are ineligible to vote here are those deemed mental incompetents by the Court (we eliminated the disenfranchisement of convicts in the early 80s) there seems to be no stats on ineligible citizen voting. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/115 "2012-05-27T06:55:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cloudy, with a chance of fraud. Oh, you’re joking! Very droll, **Bricker**. I freely confess, you had me going there, I thought you were plumb serious! Shoulda seen it, but you got me! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/116 "2012-05-27T07:23:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Cloudy, with a chance of fraud. Indeed. But not of **voter** fraud. More like [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653037) kind fraud. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/117 "2012-05-27T09:02:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In another thread, **BrainGlutton** is insisting that conservatives can’t accept facts, while liberals can. This is a good example to bring to his attention. You can’t accept what the law says. You can’t accept [this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15094685#post15094685) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/118 "2012-05-27T12:59:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You can’t accept [this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15094685#post15094685) Isn’t Bricker on record as saying there should be no fee associated with the required ID? What is he not accepting again? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/119 "2012-05-27T16:02:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, [here is a link](http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/pdotforms/voterid/VoterAffirmationNoProofofID.pdf) to the affidavit that she’d need. > > 25 PS 3050 even provides that a person who can’t do that is still entitled to cast a provisional ballot. > > I haven’t read the ACLU’s court brief, but I suspect they contend asking someone to sign that affidavit is too burdensome, or traveling to a PennDOT office to deliver it and get the free ID is too burdensome. Regarding the provisional ballot, my understanding is that she’d still have to provide ID within a week after submitting the ballot. This page gives the procedure followed regarding an affirmation. [http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml](http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/voter/voteridlaw.shtml) > [@](#): > > \*If they do not have a birth certificate with a raised seal and are a Pennsylvania native; and do not have one of the acceptable, alternative forms of photo identification to vote; and will provide a signed oath/affirmation form, when visiting the PennDOT driver license center, they must: > > ``` > Tell the PennDOT customer service representative they are a Pennsylvania native who needs a photo ID for voting purposes, and do not have a certified copy of their birth certificate; > Sign an oath/affirmation that they do not have an acceptable form of ID for voting purposes and the photo ID is needed for voting purposes; > Show a Social Security card and two proofs of residence, such as a deed, lease, tax bill, or utility bill; > Fill out a DL-54A form requesting a non-driver photo ID and; > Complete the HD01564F (Request for Certification of Birth Record for Voter ID Purposes Only) form, which collects information such as birth name, mother and father's name and place of birth. This Department of Health form is available at all Driver Licensing Centers. > > ``` > > PennDOT will then forward the completed form to the Department of Health, which maintains birth records. **After verifying the birth record is on file, the Department of Health will securely transmit this information to PennDOT.** PennDOT will then notify them by letter that their birth record has been confirmed. They may then return to any driver license center, with the above noted documentation, to receive your free photo ID for voting purposes. This verification process will take about ten days and does not require the payment of a fee. Notice the part that I’ve highlighted. Ms. Lee was born in Georgia so the PA DOH will not have any record of her birth. Presumably that would halt the process at that point and she wouldn’t be able to obtain ID. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/120 "2012-05-27T20:05:49Z")
If the tighty-righty clan is truly sincere about the sanctity of voting, they could fix it easy enough. A voter outreach program, a pointed effort to get people registered who are not. If, after all, this is not just a partisan ploy to suppress an undesirable voter from soiling a booth. All kinds of non-partisan volunteer groups would be glad to help out, little tiny ACORNS blooming all over the place! Lots and lots of brand new voters, with rock-solid ID. Shit, Republicans, what’s not to love? Instead, you have new laws to hamper such efforts. Just for example: > [@](#): > > After 70 years the non partisan League of Women Voters is getting out of the business of registering voters in Florida. They claim a law passed by the 2011 legislature is a blatant attempt to suppress voting and they want no part of the new rules. > > “It is an attempt to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. We do not have voter fraud in Florida” claims Hillsborough League of Women Voters President Mickey Castor who notes that there have been only three arrests for voter fraud in Florida since 2008. > The new rules that apply to any third party voter registration effort requires volunteers to register with the Elections Division and to return each filled out registration card to the their local supervisor of elections office within 48 hours or face fines up to $1,000 dollars. Under the current law, they have ten days… [http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/political/league-of-women-voters-accuses-legislature-of-voter-suppression](http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/political/league-of-women-voters-accuses-legislature-of-voter-suppression) It isn’t necessarily about forbidding the exercise of civil rights as it is making the road a bit more uphill. They are expecting very tight races all over the place. So an effort to nibble away at the other teams chances is worthwhile. As a tactical political move, it is sound. They even have a pious bloviation to offer, protecting the sanctity of the voter rolls! And the confidence of the electorate, which has suffered so much lately. What with ACORN, and all. And like most brilliant tactical political maneuvers, it is crystalline cynicism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=7)