Politics Question: Voter ID

[Saudade]

I'd also like to point out that in my little MN town the DMV is open from 8-12 and 1-4 (I'm not sure they're even open every day). They take cash or checks. There is 1 person working there and I've never had to wait. But those hours make it ridiculously hard to get there.

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 15:49:12 GMT -5 Saudade said:

I'd also like to point out that in my little MN town the DMV is open from 8-12 and 1-4 (I'm not sure they're even open every day). They take cash or checks. There is 1 person working there and I've never had to wait. But those hours make it ridiculously hard to get there.

they are probably closed so that one person can get a lunch break. I know working full time 8-5 I had to run a ton of errands over my lunch which made it really annoying and stupid but if your employer legally has to allow you time to vote and you need an ID to work then they should have to allow you time to get an ID.

again a headache.

I'm glad I posted this because its got me thinking and I find myself changing my mind on it.

[erin2903]

Against, for all of the reasons that have been so perfectly stated here by Stan and Sibil.

[hike]

Oct 3, 2012 15:53:33 GMT -5 crimewatcher said:

Oct 3, 2012 15:49:12 GMT -5 Saudade said:

I'd also like to point out that in my little MN town the DMV is open from 8-12 and 1-4 (I'm not sure they're even open every day). They take cash or checks. There is 1 person working there and I've never had to wait. But those hours make it ridiculously hard to get there.

they are probably closed so that one person can get a lunch break. I know working full time 8-5 I had to run a ton of errands over my lunch which made it really annoying and stupid but if your employer legally has to allow you time to vote and you need an ID to work then they should have to allow you time to get an ID.

again a headache.

I'm glad I posted this because its got me thinking and I find myself changing my mind on it.

Not everyone with full time jobs get a lunch hour in which they can leave their building.

[erin2903]

Oct 3, 2012 15:40:58 GMT -5 Stan said:

Big Mamma, it would be so much easier for me to understand the side of proponents if these mobile ID vans were the case already. But these are laws that have been pushed through in time for this election. There is no arm in place to get these disenfranchised voters IDs now, prior to that, and it's not feasible to expect it to be in place by Election Day.

Also, CW, someone sent me this link minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/08/14/good-question-is-minnesota-1-for-voter-fraud/

Those cases wouldn't even be stopped by ID. Felons have ID!

And this! The last minute pushing of these laws so close to an election really upsets me.

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 16:04:21 GMT -5 erin2903 said:

Oct 3, 2012 15:40:58 GMT -5 Stan said:

Big Mamma, it would be so much easier for me to understand the side of proponents if these mobile ID vans were the case already. But these are laws that have been pushed through in time for this election. There is no arm in place to get these disenfranchised voters IDs now, prior to that, and it's not feasible to expect it to be in place by Election Day.

Also, CW, someone sent me this link minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/08/14/good-question-is-minnesota-1-for-voter-fraud/

Those cases wouldn't even be stopped by ID. Felons have ID!

And this! The last minute pushing of these laws so close to an election really upsets me.

FTR this law would not go into affect until next year after this years election. so timing shouldn't matter in that sense

[hike]

I still want to know how they say it would cost the voter $0. Especially the poorer community.

[basilosaurus]

Oct 3, 2012 15:46:55 GMT -5 crimewatcher said:

Oct 3, 2012 15:43:28 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

This is proof that your current system to prevent fraud works! That's another reason you wouldn't need ID.

Majority Minnesota is claiming that money spent on the ID Program will save money later from all the flagged cases being "checked on/investigated".

But you've already admitted they're a biased group.

And, oh, good lord, I just googled them. They're an far right religious group. I wouldn't believe a word they say.

Even according to their own platform, pretty much none of their examples of apparent fraud would have been prevented with ID.

[basilosaurus]

OK, looking into Minnesota Majority even further.

They claim that the separation of church and state is a myth. And they link to Wallbuilders which is David Barton's organization. And that's just the beginning.

If you're not familiar with Barton, he's a revisionist evangelical historian. His most recent book, about the "lies" we learn about Jefferson, was so bad that even his Christian publishers pulled it for having no basis in fact.

If you're looking for info on fraud, please go to a non-partisan source like the brennan center. www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 16:16:03 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Oct 3, 2012 15:46:55 GMT -5 crimewatcher said:

Majority Minnesota is claiming that money spent on the ID Program will save money later from all the flagged cases being "checked on/investigated".

But you've already admitted they're a biased group.

And, oh, good lord, I just googled them. They're an far right religious group. I wouldn't believe a word they say.

Even according to their own platform, pretty much none of their examples of apparent fraud would have been prevented with ID.

Lol I'm just sharing their point on the cost benefit. The group is nutty and they have even gone on record to say the law is worth disenfranchising some to help prevent fraud. That to me is very dangerous.

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 16:08:56 GMT -5 hike said:

I still want to know how they say it would cost the voter $0. Especially the poorer community.

I'm trying to look it up but cant seem to find it. Stan is a better navigator of the intrawebs.

[basilosaurus]

Their point on the cost/benefit is still specious. Having an id will not prevent felons voting, nor will it prevent people voting in multiple locations. So those investigations will still have to be done.

I'll keep repeating it, but voter ID only prevents one person voting as someone else. This is just not the type of fraud that happens.

I'll see if I can find the article that published the stats of states like CO and FL that sent notices to people they were ineligible, illegal, etc, only to find that the vast majority were legitimately enrolled.

[hike]

Oct 3, 2012 16:48:15 GMT -5 crimewatcher said:

Oct 3, 2012 16:08:56 GMT -5 hike said:

I still want to know how they say it would cost the voter $0. Especially the poorer community.

I'm trying to look it up but cant seem to find it. Stan is a better navigator of the intrawebs.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you! I didn't mean you as "they" in my statement.

I just really hate the "free" argument because it's definitely not free even if the ID is $0.

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 17:20:47 GMT -5 hike said:

Oct 3, 2012 16:48:15 GMT -5 crimewatcher said:

I'm trying to look it up but cant seem to find it. Stan is a better navigator of the intrawebs.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you! I didn't mean you as "they" in my statement.

I just really hate the "free" argument because it's definitely not free even if the ID is $0.

the amendment is written 'the state will provide free identification to eligible voters' but I haven't been able to find how they are going to provide said documentation.

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 16:13:13 GMT -5 Stan said:

Your law wouldn't CW, but all the other ones were pushed during primary season for this November.

awww didn't know that.

[crimewatcher]

Oct 3, 2012 16:52:06 GMT -5 Stan said:

I can never find anything that disagrees with me!

LOL

[erin2903]

Oct 3, 2012 17:38:57 GMT -5 crimewatcher said:

Oct 3, 2012 16:13:13 GMT -5 Stan said:

Your law wouldn't CW, but all the other ones were pushed during primary season for this November.

awww didn't know that.

Yes those are the laws I was referring to, not yours in particular.

[hike]

Yup, PA's was just blocked yesterday because a judge said there was no way everyone could get an ID by November. (Duh)

[basilosaurus]

How could the state provide it for free without passing along costs to taxpayers?

Also, it's misleading to say it's free. Refer back to one of the (many) things I posted that talked about costs to get documents like a birth certificate and marriage certificate. The actual ID isn't the only cost incurred.

[basilosaurus]

Oct 3, 2012 18:38:12 GMT -5 @mx said:

Oct 3, 2012 13:02:56 GMT -5 @ojo said:

Failure to do so is only a misdemeanor, which doesn't render one ineligible to vote, so that's kind of irrelevant.

WTF?? Are we living in the same country? I very rarely carry my DL and I can assure it is not a misdemeanor to not have it on my person.

mx, apparently they're confused and think we're living in Zimbabwe.

In ojo's defense, I'm going to guess she misread and thought that the statement was referring to needing an ID to drive, not just to exist.

[iluvmytxrgr]

GA started requiring voter IDs in 2005. In the election before that, my small little town that had a bit over 1500 registered voters had 9 dead people WALK into city hall and vote. It was a huge scandal here. One of the men was caught off the starting block because he was using the ID of his dead brother who everyone knew died a few months before. It wasn't a big time election that they were trying to get votes for. It was a small town city council election. It didn't make big time news because no one cares about a bunch of hicks fighting with each other over how much parking should cost and if we need a recreation department or not. Does voter fraud happen often? No, but it does happen more often than what most of us hear about.
In GA the DMV is required to have a separate line for those people who are seeking only an ID, not a driver's license. I took my grandmother several months ago for her ID. It took us 15 min from the time we walked in the door to the time we walked out. This is not a small town. I bet my ass other states aren't as efficient, but that's something they need to work on. If I can go have a federal back ground check complete with fingerprinting done at the UPS store for the school I'm coaching for, the state should be able to work something like that out, too. Hell, the post office needs something to do. You used to be able to go to the police department and have an ID issued. Do I think it should be only a state issued ID to be able to vote? No.
Please excuse me if I am seem to be rambling. I'm currently being attacked by three crazy kittens.

[basilosaurus]

Tx, your points are ignoring the data I've posted. You're using anecdotes to extrapolate to the whole. Your gramma got her ID. Great! That doesn't mean everyone can do that so quickly. I bet your gramma had proper documentation and didn't have to track it down. That's not the case for everyone. Again, look at studies like the Brennan center that go beyond your personal experience. One recent study said that "In Georgia, photo ID requirements could prevent a "significant number" of the 275,000 black and Latino residents of the redrawn 12th Congressional District from voting."

You mentioned fraud that was caught. So, how does that prove the need for a new restriction? Even if the guy didn't have ID, how do you know that fraud wouldn't have been caught later in the audits? Obviously they caught the 8 without ID if you know there were 9 cases.

Not supporting voter ID doesn't mean making elections a free for all. In all the states I've voted, I've had to provide something, usually a signature which is compared with the signature I provided when I registered.

Georgia at least allows people to use an expired license as ID. I believe it also provides for a provisional ballot if you don't have ID. It's still a shitty law, but it's less restrictive than some of those being passed currently. Federal courts have continued to block voter ID laws. Just because GA's still stands, it doesn't mean it's legit.

[beans]

Oct 4, 2012 15:49:30 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Tx, your points are ignoring the data I've posted. You're using anecdotes to extrapolate to the whole. Your gramma got her ID. Great! That doesn't mean everyone can do that so quickly. I bet your gramma had proper documentation and didn't have to track it down. That's not the case for everyone. Again, look at studies like the Brennan center that go beyond your personal experience. One recent study said that "In Georgia, photo ID requirements could prevent a "significant number" of the 275,000 black and Latino residents of the redrawn 12th Congressional District from voting."

You mentioned fraud that was caught. So, how does that prove the need for a new restriction? Even if the guy didn't have ID, how do you know that fraud wouldn't have been caught later in the audits? Obviously they caught the 8 without ID if you know there were 9 cases.

Not supporting voter ID doesn't mean making elections a free for all. In all the states I've voted, I've had to provide something, usually a signature which is compared with the signature I provided when I registered.

Georgia at least allows people to use an expired license as ID. I believe it also provides for a provisional ballot if you don't have ID. It's still a shitty law, but it's less restrictive than some of those being passed currently. Federal courts have continued to block voter ID laws. Just because GA's still stands, it doesn't mean it's legit.

I am not sure at this point if TX is being deliberately obtuse, or has just dug her heels in, or what. I don't really think I view you as this kind of poster, tx so I am a little surprised I think.