It would be one thing if there was widespread voter fraud of the people voting for someone else variety, but there isn't, so its just adding a layer of bureaucracy for the helluvit.

How can you require ID to vote? That takes all of the fun out of registering to vote in some deceased person's name.

Since voting is a privilege and not a right, therefore not anything I'm interested in exercising, I don't care what requirements the state sets upon it.

Voter fraud is absolutely rampant, especially in states like Oregon which do all of their elections/ballot measures by mail. There are so many ways to create fake voter registrations, fake mailed ballots, or fake identifications that requiring ID to vote will hardly make a dent in the problem, but it's a start.

Anyone who believes that all votes are valid is a fool. When it comes to the way our nation is run and how it affects our daily life, trust but verify.

I'm all for having to show photo ID to vote, but in Maine, Governor LePage pushed a bill that would only allow people to vote who remembered to register three days prior. This was pushed under the slogan "Make sure your vote is secure." It was laughable, and didn't pass. It was a transparent effort on his part to make sure those individuals most likely to forget to register til the day of (college students and retirees, in this state overwhelmingly anti-LePage, regardless of political party) didn't have the opportunity to vote. Secure? Against what? Want to know how much voter fraud there is in Maine? None that anyone has been able to demonstrate.

Repeating the mantra that there is no vote fraud does not make it so.

Bush won Florida and the presidency by a very narrow margin, and I suspect most Americans would like to know that every legitimate vote counted, and only legitimate votes counted. There were more than enough questionable votes counted and discarded for both parties to call the results into question.

I question the motives and the honesty of anyone who opposes requiring ID to vote.

Well, gee, Mr, Holder, thank you so much. Now I can vote against your sponsor's opponent multiple times! Oooh, delicious irony!

By the way - out here in the sticks, the volunteers at the polls know everybody and they have a list you must appear on to vote. If that's so in the big city -- well, I suggest that one might look at Chicago.

It never fails to amaze me that when "the disenfranchised" are mentioned, they seem to be invalids, criminals, from the projects, and Democrats.

It would be one thing if there was widespread voter fraud of the people voting for someone else variety, but there isn't...

What a terrible, terrible argument. Maybe the reason that you think there's not widespread voter fraud of this variety is because there's really no way to catch it? If someone doesn't have to prove who they are when they vote, how on earth are we supposed to know whether or not there's fraud?

...so its just adding a layer of bureaucracy for the helluvit.

If this was the case, I would think leftists would be lining up in support of this measure.

This is not another layer of bureaucracy. It's simply asking someone to pull out an ID, something people do on a daily basis for entirely mundane purchases. Everyone does it. Everyone. Either leftists think their voters are complete morons, or they're afraid that all of a sudden we will have evidence of widespread voter fraud of this type.

Frankly, the only reason I can think of for anyone to be against requiring ID to vote is if they expect their side to benefit from vote fraud.

When you have districts where there were more votes counted than there were registered voters (as happened in more than one district in Washington State), there is obviously something wrong, yet there were only halfhearted investigations, IIRC.

I have to say, even as when I was super duper college liberal (I run a business now, which grounds you in reality pretty quick) I always thought the argument that you shouldn't have to have an ID to vote was kind of stupid.

It makes sense to require IDs. If you don't need IDs couldn't you just register a whole bunch of people who don't exist and then have people go vote as those non-existent people? It doesn't even seem challenging.

Besides, how else are the little old ladies who run the voting machines going to know you are who you say you are?

Picture ID?! I don't even have to leave the house. I get my ballot in the mail, I fill it out at home, and then I can either mail it back in or drop it into a box downtown.

Bush won Florida and the presidency by a very narrow margin, and I suspect most Americans would like to know that every legitimate vote counted, and only legitimate votes counted. There were more than enough questionable votes counted and discarded for both parties to call the results into question.

The problem with Florida is that the election result in that state was a statistical tie** but since most Americans know nothing about probability and statistics, they continued (and still continue) to adhere to the ridiculous notion that votes can be counted with 100% accuracy. Even the endless stream of hanging chads, dimpled chads, butterfly ballots and election panels couldn't shake this belief.

**The vote count methods as specified under state law came up for Bush, who therefore should have been awarded the state, but even the two machine counts didn't generate the same result. The madness was in those people who thought a hand count would somehow be more accurate.

Frankly, the only reason I can think of for anyone to be against requiring ID to vote is if they expect their side to benefit from vote fraud.

Or if voter ID laws disproportionately exclude their voters. ID laws disenfranchise groups that typically vote for the Democratic party:

Studies show that as many as 12% of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

It makes sense to require IDs. If you don't need IDs couldn't you just register a whole bunch of people who don't exist and then have people go vote as those non-existent people? It doesn't even seem challenging.

And yet, it just doesn't seem to happen with any great frequency.

The penalties for a single fraudulent vote are severe (5 years/$10k fine), and yet yield just a single marginal vote. To have even a minor effect on a local election, you'd need someone or a group of people to risk hundreds of years of prison time.

...evidence from the microscopically scrutinized 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington State actually reveals just the opposite: though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

...

In Missouri in 2000, for example, the Secretary of State claimed that 79 voters were registered with addresses at vacant lots, but subsequent investigation revealed that the lots in question actually housed valid and legitimate residences. Similarly, a 1995 investigation into votes allegedly cast in Baltimore by deceased voters and those with disenfranchising felony convictions revealed that the voters in question were both alive and felony-free.

http://www.brennancenter.org/

Or if voter ID laws disproportionately exclude their voters. ID laws disenfranchise groups that typically vote for the Democratic party:

Studies show that as many as 12% of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

So we're supposed to allow GOP voters to be disenfranchised through fraud so that Dem voters might avoid getting disenfranchised through laziness/ignorance?

And like Nicole above, you're making the argument that voting fraud doesn't occur because people don't get caught doing it. That doesn't really make me feel any better at all, especially since an extremly easy solution exists.

Hmm. I wonder. Is photo ID enough?

Good ol' LBJ (probably) got his career started through voter fraud... look up Box 13, Jim Wells County.

I recall a story that came out early this year, about how voter fraud, rather than being a rarity, is widespread. I wish I could find it to link. Of course, it comes many different forms. It could consist of stealing a ballot box, fraudulent registrations, failure to count absentee ballots... My cousins live in New Mexico but are registered to vote in Texas- shit like that happens all the time. Which state do Florida Snowbirds with homes in the Northeast (or Colorado) cast their votes in? Hmmm?

In order to go about normal, day-to-day business as an adult, you need an ID. The Texas Dems tried to claim (on the debate floor) that the Voter ID law would disenfranchise people who don't have a driver's license. By their theory, old people and people who've had their licenses temporarily suspended wouldn't be able to vote. This is a crap argument: You can get a TX State ID card from DPS for $16 that is good for 6 years. If you're over 60, the ID card is only $6, and it does not expire. I typically vote using ONLY my TxDL.

"In order to go about normal, day-to-day business as an adult, you need an ID."

Speak for yourself.

"It never fails to amaze me that when "the disenfranchised" are mentioned, they seem to be invalids, criminals, from the projects, and Democrats."

So true radwaste!

I'm shocked that this is even an issue. Maybe Holder would prefer that we ink thumbs after voting like in the 3rd world.

Maybe Holder would prefer that we ink thumbs after voting like in the 3rd world.

Heck, even that would be a marked improvement from our current system.

Kay, please give a source for the State of Oregon voter fraud. As an Oregon voter and election volunteer I can assure you that when you register to vote you must provide ID. When you mail in your ballet, you must sign the envelope and that signature is compared to the one on file. If the signature doesn't match, the voter is notified and given the option to come in and present identification and sign a new voter registration card as signatures often change as you age. Vote by mail isn't any different than the absentee voting by mail offered by other states.

Oh, and before we had vote by mail, I did have to show ID when I voted in person in Oregon elections. And there was a long list of acceptable IDs so it really wasn't that onerous. I simply had to present something that had my name and address on it, and it needed to match the name and address on file.

Let's make it simple, make it fair and let them fight it out.

Voting rights are constitutionally given rights.
Gun ownership are also constitutionally given rights. In both cases, felons, the underage etc, are not allowed to vote.
Make the requirements for voting the same as they are for owning a gun.
Once they are the same, anyone who claims that one is too stringent, but the other to lax, is a hypocrite.

As for the "arguments" about it not happening. The real answer is just like with any crime, we don't know how often it happens, we only know how often we catch or convict someone of it. But with this one crime we are not actively looking.

So we're supposed to allow GOP voters to be disenfranchised through fraud so that Dem voters might avoid getting disenfranchised through laziness/ignorance?...And like Nicole above, you're making the argument that voting fraud doesn't occur because people don't get caught doing it.

Elections are really really important to the people running in them, and we have had a lot of prominent, close elections recently in which the voting has been closely scrutinized. If serious fraud of the sort likely to affect an election's outcome were common, I think it's likely it would have been found in one of these elections.

I'm not unconcerned about voting fraud; I don't think fraud of the sort addressed by voter ID bills will address is significant in election outcomes. If one were determined to swing an election, the better approach would be to attack the electronic voting machines that are increasingly common, and have been repeatedly shown to be insecure. To me, these machines represent a much greater threat to the integrity of elections, because they could be hacked in such a way as to systematically change the votes of real people in a way that is hard to detect.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore1.htm

This article sums up my position nicely, though I can understand if you prefer peer reviewed pieces. I worked the 2008 election in Multnomah county (Portland, Oregon), and I have firsthand experience of how easy it would be to falsify votes, and how hard and time consuming it is to confirm false votes The county services that are supposed to varify votes are the same people who varify unemployment claims and other government services...... Not a good endorsement.

Long story short, it's not hard to create false votes. Deceased individuals, felons, fabricated voter identities.... All of the above vote every year. Google it.

Ah, Kay is a Sizemore believer. Enough said.

Nanc "When you mail in your ballet, you must sign the envelope and that signature is compared to the one on file. If the signature doesn't match"

Signatures? LOL, I probably sign my name about once a day, be it on a check a credit card reader, or some form. Never had anyone who ever looked at them said it wasn't me.
And I have horrible penmanship, even under the best of circumstances. When leaving the navy I once had to sign some security form, a dozen seperate times on the form, witnessed. The one statement, from her, was if I hadn't been watching you I'd have sworn those were different signatures.
And never have I had a signature, questioned. That is your proof, no, that is a joke.

As to Christopher, penalties for illegally downloading or copying a song or movie are even more stringent, few peope have ever been convicted of it. Do you believe it doesn't exist?

Frankly, the only reason I can think of for anyone to be against requiring ID to vote is if they expect their side to benefit from vote fraud.

Or if voter ID laws disproportionately exclude their voters. ID laws disenfranchise groups that typically vote for the Democratic party:

Studies show that as many as 12% of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. That percentage is even higher for seniors, people of color, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

I didn't bother to include the point that along with a voter ID law would be the availability for anyone without a photo ID to get one, whether they drive or not, either free or for a nominal fee, because it seemed so bleeding obvious.

It makes sense to require IDs. If you don't need IDs couldn't you just register a whole bunch of people who don't exist and then have people go vote as those non-existent people? It doesn't even seem challenging.

And yet, it just doesn't seem to happen with any great frequency.

Heh. So you disputed my first statement, then completely ignored the second one in this response to someone else. Nice.

Sorry, rather than "ignored", I should have said, "used BS data against".

The New York Times found more voters who voted in both New York and Florida than the margin of victory for Bush. Not a one was prosecuted. Ditto for the number of convicted felons who voted.

The argument that we shouldnt take the most rudimentary of precautions because someon might still cheat is laughable. WayneB nailed it.

As to Christopher, penalties for illegally downloading or copying a song or movie are even more stringent, few peope have ever been convicted of it. Do you believe it doesn't exist?

Of course not. There's copious evidence that it exists. If there's comparable evidence about widespread voter fraud, no one here has provided it.

Sorry, rather than "ignored", I should have said, "used BS data against".

Funny to call my sources B.S. when all you have is speculation!

Voter ID laws are proposed by people to suppress the vote of people they don't want to vote, in the name of solving a problem that they cannot show is significant. Given that our country has a long and distinguished history of using such tactics to disenfranchise select groups of voters , I think proponents of voter ID laws need to show they're solving a real problem. So far, they can't. Or perhaps we should say fuck it and bring back the poll tax or property requirements?

So just so we are clear, if you want to travel around the united states via car you must present your ID to any law enforcment officer who pulls you over.

If you wnat to travel around the united states via any means at all you must present ID to the Border patrol agents several hunndered miles away from the border.

And if you want to travel several hunndered miles in a few hours by paying a civillian 3rd party companay you must show your ID to one of (if not several of) the fry cook reject(s) the government decided to sort kinda deputise.

But if you want a say in who gets to make the laws about where and to whom and how often you have to show your ID, well then we dont need to really know if you are who you say you are, now do we?

By putting up with people voting multiple times in the same election, we send the message that the election process just isn't that important.

By putting up with people voting fraudulently under false names, we send the message that the election process just isn't that important to us.

By putting up with election officials regularly "finding" boxes of "misplaced" ballots that turn losing candidates into winning ones, we send the message that the election process just isn't that important to us.

By not censuring or firing election officials who leave boxes of ballots in the trunks of their cars or in warehouses, we are sending the message that the election process just isn't that important to us.

Requiring a legal ID in order to vote will stop very little voter fraud, if any. But it will start us back on the road to taking elections seriously.

If you can't be bothered to take a few hours to go down to the DMV and get an ID, do we really want you voting?

Given that our country has a long and distinguished history of using such tactics to disenfranchise select groups of voters , I think proponents of voter ID laws need to show they're solving a real problem. So far, they can't. Or perhaps we should say fuck it and bring back the poll tax or property requirements?

Tactics yes. Requiring ID? Dont recall that one.

And quite frankly the worst mistake in american politics was expanding the vote beyond the paramaters of land owners. Its lead directly to our current welfare state where the have nots use their political force to steal from those who have more

"And quite frankly the worst mistake in american politics was expanding the vote beyond the paramaters of land owners"

Women? Land owners? Nobody should be allowed to "vote" when what is being voted on is someone else's rights.

"Studies show that as many as 12% of eligible voters do not have government-issued photo ID. "

So what you're saying is that black people are too stupid to go to the courthouse and fill out a form. Somehow I doubt that this is true. But if it is, should people that stupid be encouraged to vote? And should the Democratic Party really be trying that hard to pursue the stupid vote?

"You can get a TX State ID card from DPS for $16 that is good for 6 years. If you're over 60, the ID card is only $6, and it does not expire."

This is exactly why I am against requiring a "state-issued" ID to vote.

No one should have to pay to vote.

And yet somehow other peoples rights are usually are what is getting voted on. Funny how that works

"And yet somehow other peoples rights are usually are what is getting voted on. Funny how that works"

Your system is perfectly designed to achieve the results you are seeing.

My system?

Nope, my system is the one set up by the framers where the president had less domestic power then a senior congressman and it didnt cost a billion dollars to run an election campaign for a job that pays out a little over 0.01% of what it cost to get the job.

Think about that a momnet will you? Spending
1,000,000,000 to get a job that will pay over 4yrs
0,001,600,000

To put it another way for every $625 dollars paid in getting himself elected Obama will get back $1.00

Where else on gods green earth would anyone trade away 125 $5 dollar bills for four quarters?

My system is one where senators(appointed by state legislatures) represented the interests of the states they came from over the population at large and the executive branch and congressmen represented the people against the intrests of the states and the executive branch

No one should have to pay to vote.

Posted by: Cat at December 16, 2011 4:08 PM

Why do I have to pay $10 to the state of Oregon to pass a background check to buy a gun for self defense? Why do I need a permit to engage in my right to self defense? Why do we need permits to engage in free speech (protest march permissions/insurance etc)?

So what you're saying is that black people are too stupid to go to the courthouse and fill out a form. Somehow I doubt that this is true. But if it is, should people that stupid be encouraged to vote? And should the Democratic Party really be trying that hard to pursue the stupid vote?

You forgot old people, Dave! They're stupid, too, under your logic.

I don't presume to know others' circumstances. Lacking a photo ID - heck, lacking a couple - is hard for me to understand. But I don't presume to know why everyone lives the way they do, and I'm confident there are reasons other than stupidity for why someone might lack photo ID. Absent any evidence that requiring one to vote would solve a real problem, I don't see what such a bill accomplishes other than targeted disenfranchisement.

"Absent any evidence that requiring one to vote would solve a real problem...'

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. Denying that vote fraud has taken place, and continues to take place, is wishful thinking. See Al Franken, where his vote count mysteriously improved by several hundred votes on every recount. See Christine Gregoire, who benefited from convicted felons voting illegally in King County. See the ACORN convictions, where they were paying people to sign up voters under assumed names and addresses. And there was the case of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, where they tried it again but they got out-foxed.

And I should add: There are certain obligations to citizenship. Paying taxes is a lot more difficult and painful than going to to the courthouse and filling out a damn form. But I don't get a free pass just because I don't like doing it. Registering to vote is trivially easy compared to a lot of other things that productive citizens are expected to do. Complaining that it disadvantages one party is pure partisan hackery. It gets absolutely zero sympathy from me.

This is exactly why I am against requiring a "state-issued" ID to vote.

No one should have to pay to vote. -- Cat at December 16, 2011 4:08 PM

"In order to go about normal, day-to-day business as an adult, you need an ID."

Speak for yourself. -- damaged justice at December 16, 2011 9:03 AM

Let's see -- in one day I made three stops.

I went to a convenience store to grab some beer -- I needed a state ID card to buy it.

I went to a grocery store's pharmacy -- I needed a state ID card to buy it.

Here's the real kicker -- I went to a chain hardware store to buy wood pellets for my pellet stove. (Compressed sawdust with some preservative.) They had an ID check because of the preservative used could be made into drugs.

Plus when I check into a hotel they want a state ID.

Now you have the wingnut mayor of New Haven Connecticut wanting to give the franchise to the local voters.

Quite frankly I think they should change the voting rights so that it wasn't a poll tax, but that you payed at least $1 more in taxes than you received from the government.

I am not being obtuse. I've yet to read anything cited by any voter ID proponents that supports the assertion that voter fraud of the sort ID laws would prevent has affect the outcome of any recent elections. So far, all you have are assertions and insinuations. Where's the data?

Even if voter fraud didn't exist (highly unlikely), I still don't see the issue with requiring ID to vote.

Getting an ID isn't an onerous task (it's pretty much just as easy as getting registered to vote).

And to touch that argument, why aren't the ID opponents just as vociferous against the requirement to register? I mean, after all, this kind of innate natural right should mean that anyone can just saunter on in to any voting station they like, and go for it. Doesn't matter where or how often.

Even if there were absolutely no fraud whatsoever (and odds - wise, I'm far more likely to win the lottery), it is still a valid principle to require that the voter positively represent themselves.

In addition to being a right, voting is a responsibility. You're making a decision to place someone in power over the rest of us. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to say that, in that case, you should man up and prove you're who you say you are.

Voting is not a right by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're a progressive, in which case imagination is all you have.

While that may be literally true (on it's face), overall jurisprudence basically makes the case that it is, effectively, a right (from wikipedia):

"While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for U.S. citizens to vote in presidential elections, there is no such federal right. In a Per curiam opinion regarding Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the Supreme Court noted that, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," a logical conclusion given the history of the Electoral College.[34] However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. However, states are given considerable leeway when it comes to this "fundamental right"."

And, I'm neither a progressive or a conservative (I'm all middle ground independent like substance I pretty much dislike them all).

Though nothing in that jurisprudence itself limits the concept of requiring ID to vote (though the preclearance clause for some selected states may have some effect).

There's still no really good reason to proclaim that requiring ID is some kind of legitimate impediment to voting.

And, to elaborate a bit on this whole ID thing:

Basically, the jurisprudence really just requires that there be no discrimination in regard to voting.

Requiring an ID from all voters is not discriminatory, as long as the same rules apply to *all* voters.

I had forgotten about the Washington state issue...just looked it up.

It looks like the handling of ballots is (or was-- at least) so poor that it would be difficult to tell if there is other fraud.

"Voting is not a right by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're a progressive, in which case imagination is all you have."

Don't miss this. There is no Constitutional provision for the popular vote in selecting a President.

While the public is yammering on their cell phone, they will not notice when the polls are actually closed.

"It looks like the handling of ballots is (or was-- at least) so poor that it would be difficult to tell if there is other fraud. "

Yes, and that is intentional. Makes it easier for the fraudsters to operate. The Chicago way, dontcha know.

The New York Times found more voters who voted in both New York and Florida than the margin of victory for Bush. Not a one was prosecuted.

Yes but they voted for Gore in NY and Buchanan in Florida and so had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election.