Does your state require a photo ID to vote? Don't vote!

[Jmustang1968]

Simply put, data speaks louder than words. Voter ID laws DO reduce voting rates, especially among certain groups. Which is to say, people who are otherwise eligible to vote cannot due to a technicality or are dissuaded from trying.

It doesn't matter whether you think getting an ID isn't really burdensome at all. It does bring down voter turnout. It does serve more to reduce voter turnout than to combat fraud.

From that perspective, the laws are a failure. If the stated reason is to reduce fraud, and the side-effect is to disenfranchise voters in greater number than the effects of the hypothetical fraud, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the voter ID laws really serve a different purpose than actually reducing fraud.

Just goes to show how lazy some people are doesn't it? if it takes any added effort then they decide why bother. I bet everyone would vote if they could anonymously text in their vote from their couch.

Yeah traveling to the poll station takes time and has a cost. Forcing people to travel there is disenfranchising those who dont have the means or the will to get there..

[prfsnl_gmr]

I believe it is about time to say this thread has run its course.

Yes.

[ninjainspandex]

I believe it is about time to say this thread has run its course.

I agree. We should shut this whole thing down before people start literally advocating for literacy tests and poll taxes...

Objection!!!

[prfsnl_gmr]

[Stark]

Whoa. That GIF is a little scary.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Whoa. That GIF is a little scary.

I'm just glad you can see it. I never know when I link images...

[dsheinem]

Whoa. That GIF is a little scary.

It's his driver's license photo

[jp1]

Ack didn't shut anything down, he was responding to the stream of hashtags and insults (of which I am guilty of using as well). I assume if we continue to have more reasoned discussion (e.g. citing sources and responding to arguments in good faith), that the public debate will continue.

It seemed to me he had. Just trying to be respectful. Anyway, I see your point about diverse cultures and not everyone being privy to all of them. I suppose, in fact that hardly anyone is privy to all of them. So, while the use of the term may have been appropriate, it's derogatory undertones seemed to indicate a harsh racist or prejudiced accusation.

I suppose the debate has gone off the rails about what is required to fulfill the commitment vs. whether or not the commitment is constitutional. So, for the sake of keeping things on track...I will refrain from any more discourse about the difficulties of having to obtain an id and focus on the liberties it infringes upon.

Strictly from a viewpoint of the law infringing on our civil rights, does anyone see anything in the constitution that would indicate that regulation of that right is indeed the same as stepping on it? Why shouldn't felons have the right to vote, if it is indeed not a privilege?

*Lastly, if the ID were provided for free, how then could it be considered a poll tax?*

*Edit* This was a joke, since it was specifically addressed in the first paragraph of your source article. Didn't catch, I guess.

[Cronozilla]

False and false. They arent trying to get lower voter turnout. They are just trying to make sure those voting are who they say they are and lawfully able to vote.

Probably, however, I was responding from the given position of being opposed to the situation.

Devil's Advocate:
And, it is important to note that the people whom cannot afford IDs will be taken out of the voter pool. If they truly meant to end voter fraud by requiring IDs then the IDs would have also been free.

In a lot of areas that are doing that, they will even create your ID at the voting location if you don't have one and have other documentation to say you are are who you say you are.

As much as people want to argue laziness, it is true that if you want someone to do something you need to make it as easy as possible. People who run bureaucracies are well aware of this. In places where they have multiple ways to easily vote and systems in place to ensure those votes are accurate, the turnout numbers are simply higher.

It's very easy to see that, if you don't support easier voting methods and you support hurdles to actually casting a vote, there's probably a correlation where you don't actually want more people in that area voting.

[pepharytheworm]

If IDs were given away and everyone could just get one without any hoops. Then I say sure after a few years when it is proven hardly anyone doesn't have an ID anymore.

But the point is why are these laws coming into effect now when there is no evidence of rampant fraud? At the very least it's a scare tactic, creating a problem that doesn't really exist and then coming up with a solution. Why make things harder even if you find it insignificant? Would all of you who think it's not a problem also be the ones voting for voter ID laws? I think most of you just don't care at most because it doesn't effect you and probably no one in this thread has or would vote for there to be voter ID laws.

Please come correct me if anyone actually is advocating for voter ID's, cause all I see are people opposed, unsure or don't find it a problem. Anyone truly thinks this is necessary?