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

[jp1]

So, even when tax refunds come back for these folks they can't spare the minimal expense to get an identification card? Look, I get where you are coming from, I really do...but you are trying to say that hard working people in poverty have absolutely no expendable income for even the most arbitrary things.

I'm sorry, but this has simply not been my experience. Now, it is of course only personal experience, but I have a lot of it. Having lived in West Virginia and New Orleans, even my current location isn't exactly affluent and has many lower income areas, I happen to know personally a great many of the kinds of people you are referring to, and not only could they manage to procure an id if they wished; they would be downright pissed off if you insinuated to them in person that they could not. No matter how sympathetic your view is.

College, purchase of a car, purchase of a home, debt, etc... These are real obstacles these people face. Purchasing the equivalent of a takeout pizza is not one of them.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Also, an ID isn't necessary to vote. I have cast multiple ballots without one.

Red herring fail.

I vote without an ID as well - because i've completed the (more time consuming and intrusive) steps to register in advance. I'm pretty sure we are discussing people who are too lazy to even do that and can vote day of, regardless of pre-registering, if they provide an ID.

It is not a red herring. You asserted that an ID was necessary to vote. I said that it was not, and in support of my proposition cited the fact that I have voted in multiple free and fair elections without an ID. I might also have cited the fact that, throughout the history of our nation, we have held hundreds of free and fair elections in which an ID, much less a photo ID, was not required to cast a ballot. Despite the length of this thread - and although we have discussed the specter of in-person voter fraud - I have yet to read any compelling, fact-based basis for requiring people to own and present an ID, much less a photo ID, in order to cast a ballot.

Also, the debate is not over whether people should get an ID, whether obtaining an ID is onerous, etc. Certainly, we would all agree that life is much more convenient with an ID, and I think we would all agree that the difficulty of obtaining an ID varies based upon your age, resources, sophistication, and the type of ID. The debate is whether the government should require people to present an ID or photo ID to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote. Again, I have yet to read a compelling basis for any such requirement; I think that the bases for such requirements are, in actuality, veiled attempts to suppress voter-turnout by people inclined to vote against the party enacting the requirement.

If, however, you can present some evidence that the benefit of preventing in-person voter fraud through an ID or photo ID requirement outweighs the cost associated with requiring an ID or photo ID to vote (i.e., the number of people who will be unable to cast ballots due to the new requirement, the administrative cost of issuing new IDs, the time associated with obtaining IDs, etc.), I will certainly consider it.

The number one cause of NOT having an ID is POVERTY,

Source?

I don't know of a single recent study, but there are multiple resources showing that it is the biggest obstacle. Here's a good selection:

The Posner dissent cited earlier in the trhead also discusses this burden, its appendix shows how costly, difficult, and time-consuming it can be to obtain a photo ID in certain circumstances.

[ninjainspandex]

you know what is a real burden? having to get off the couch to go vote. If only I could just text my vote in like on American Idol.

[MrPopo]

Also, the debate is not over whether people should get an ID, whether obtaining an ID is onerous, etc. Certainly, we would all agree that life is much more convenient with an ID, and I think we would all agree that the difficulty of obtaining an ID varies based upon your age, resources, sophistication, and the type of ID. The debate is whether the government should require people to present an ID or photo ID to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote. Again, I have yet to read a compelling basis for any such requirement; I think that the bases for such requirements are, in actuality, veiled attempts to suppress voter-turnout by people inclined to vote against the party enacting the requirement.

If, however, you can present some evidence that the benefit of preventing in-person voter fraud through an ID or photo ID requirement outweighs the cost associated with requiring an ID or photo ID to vote (i.e., the number of people who will be unable to cast ballots due to the new requirement, the administrative cost of issuing new IDs, the time associated with obtaining IDs, etc.), I will certainly consider it.

I personally am not worried about voter fraud; the reason I think it would be a good idea to require IDs to vote is it becomes a way to encourage everyone to get an ID in the first place, with all the benefits having an ID gives you. I didn't get a driver's license until I was 20, but I had a State ID at 16.

There's also the part where if someone can't even be arsed to get an ID and the renew it once every several years, how confident are we that they've even taken any time to be informed about the issues or candidates in an election?

[Stark]

you know what is a real burden? having to get off the couch to go vote. If only I could just text my vote in like on American Idol.

Maybe once we're voting for JLo's butt for president that will be a thing.

[Luke]

Surprised the "Your vote doesn't count anyway" discussion hasn't started aka the Electoral College throw down.

[Ack]

The debate is whether the government should require people to present an ID or photo ID to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote. Again, I have yet to read a compelling basis for any such requirement; I think that the bases for such requirements are, in actuality, veiled attempts to suppress voter-turnout by people inclined to vote against the party enacting the requirement.

Conversely, and as a purely intellectual exercise, if an ID were hypothetically free(as in no economic cost, no time cost, no barriers whatsoever to receive one, etc.), would you change your opinion?

The argument in favor of Voter ID laws tend towards stopping a limited form of voter fraud and urging legal citizens to acquire an ID. The argument against Voter ID tend towards economic concerns forming a barrier for individuals who are unable to obtain an ID, specifically different non-"mainstream" subgroups of Americans. If it were possible to create a means by which IDs could be obtained at no cost whatsoever, would there be another argument against Voter ID?

[ZeroAX]

If it were possible to create a means by which IDs could be obtained at no cost whatsoever, would there be another argument against Voter ID?

From what I understand if the other party proposes it first, you can not support it cause your friends will stop talking to you.

[mjmjr25]

1. It is not a red herring. You asserted that an ID was necessary to vote. I said that it was not...

2. I think we would all agree that the difficulty of obtaining an ID varies based upon your age, resources, sophistication, and the type of ID.

3. ...veiled attempts to suppress voter-turnout by people inclined to vote against the party enacting the requirement.

4. If, however, you can present some evidence that the benefit of preventing in-person voter fraud through an ID or photo ID requirement outweighs the cost associated with requiring an ID or photo ID to vote (i.e., the number of people who will be unable to cast ballots due to the new requirement, the administrative cost of issuing new IDs, the time associated with obtaining IDs, etc.), I will certainly consider it.

1. No, you suggested we should read the Posner bit under the guise he's a conservative. I said Posner is not a conservative and is the type of person i'd expect to suggest an ID should not be a requirement.

2. No, I would not agree that getting a State ID, the issue at hand, is difficult in any circumstances. We are not talking about CDL drivers licenses here. I'm hearing "bus fare, transportation, time off-work, no money, etc" as reasons people can't get an ID. An absolute crock. I think some of you would have us believe there is a segment of the population that is only able to leave the house once a year due to time and costs associated, and that one time is to vote, but now we won't let them. What an embarrassing summation.

3. I'm socially conservative but have voted libertarian and democrat many times. There are plenty of liberal leaning members of this board who've said they think an ID should be required in this thread. This isn't about suppressing votes - it is ensuring someone is who they say they are. A simple thing made to seem like the most arduous task by bored intellectuals.

4. *head down, eyes closed, wags head slowly* Evidence to outweigh cost? It is a benefit to the process that people who (per the financial hardship angle): can't afford the luxuries of newspaper, internet, cable news, or telephone are not casting ballots that will determine the social, economic, legal and military policies of this country. If you need evidence why informed people should be the people casting ballots then you are too far gone.

For Dave - informed does not equate to: financial status, race, creed, gender, religion or any other criteria. Informed equates to informed.

[dsheinem]

I'm hearing "bus fare, transportation, time off-work, no money, etc" as reasons people can't get an ID. An absolute crock.

How nice to have the luxury to not think that these are legitimate concerns of actual people. What a worldview.

A simple thing made to seem like the most arduous task by bored intellectuals.

I'd rather be accused of being a bored intellectual than an ethnocentric ignoramus.

I If you need evidence why informed people should be the people casting ballots then you are too far gone.

How informed should they be? Should they have to pass a test first? Who would decide the minimum bar? That's a whole different discussion about whether there should be knowledge-based barriers to voting. Given how stats about education and party preference line up, Republicans likely would not favor these proposals.

For Dave - informed does not equate to: financial status, race, creed, gender, religion or any other criteria. Informed equates to informed.

Thanks for the extra snark, glad to see you too are capable of being dickish about something that presumably only bored intellectuals care about.


Look, debates about why or why not someone can get proper ID aside, the bottom line is that all these recent proposed voting ID laws are:

A) sponsored by Republicans and (to?) remove historically Democratic voters from the polling place
B) represent an attempt to fix a problem that isn't statistically significant at the expense of a population of people that would otherwise be allowed to legally vote
C) regularly found to be unjust and in violation of existing voting law by the courts in which they are tested

The voting ID stuff is an argument for suppression wrapped in paranoia, proposed by people who supposedly want less government involvement in and regulation of your life. That's a crock.