You had to have photo ID to get into the Democratic Party National Convention, to watch the players over the top of a 4-foot wall, so, no, obviously not racist.
The criminal and the indigent obviously vote Democrat, though, so use whatever term you can to blind people to fraud.

Great point, Rad.

Either it's not racist or the Demcratic party is racist for requiring it.

I thought most places already have programs to help the poor and uneducated get photo ID.

Is this another solution in search of a problem?

Photo I.D. is required to enter some federal courthouses. Just last week, a federal court ruled that requiring photo I.D. for voting was unconstitutional.

http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/faqs/q-what-documentation-is-required-to-enter-the-federal-court-buildings/

Photo I.D. is required to enter some federal courthouses. Just last week, a federal court ruled that requiring photo I.D. for voting was unconstitutional.

http://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/faqs/q-what-documentation-is-required-to-enter-the-federal-court-buildings/

I get tired of hearing that there is so little voter fraud that ID is unnecessary. If they don't check ID, then how does anyone know how much fraud there is?

Eh. I have had really really bad experiences with the DMV and getting an ID.

The DMV refused to issue my ID for about 6 months due to sheer incompetence. Imagine if I was poor and didn't know how to fight it.

My relative had to go to the DMV 3 times because they refused to accept his California birth certificate. It wasn't until I drove him to another wealthier city, fought it, that they finally relented. He is poor btw.

On the flipside. I had another relative who bribed a city judge and the DMV to get a clean driving record. I don't remember the details I just remember it was a long time ago and this relative busted out a shit ton of cash to get multiple DUIs erased.

Plus this reddit comment changed my mind:

Well, voter ID laws by design make it more difficult to vote - the idea being that if it's too easy to register to vote, people might do so fraudulently. In fact, there's little evidence of that type of fraud occurring.
To answer the question:
Voter ID laws typically require a potential voter to obtain a specific form of identification at cost to them. In effect, requiring that one purchase the ability to vote (a poll tax), and a barrier to the very poor.
Voter ID laws typically require a potential voter to obtain an ID from a specific location or set of locations, in some cases that may be dozens of miles away (in the case of Texas, some people have to travel >100 miles). This is problematic if the person cannot drive and no transportation is available to them (elderly and rural poor), and also difficult for people that have jobs that do not give them time off to do so.
Voter ID laws require documentation that may be difficult to obtain and is typically not available free of charge. Passports and birth certificates require money to obtain, and an out of town birth certificate can be complicated to obtain (depending on where you were born). Not all US citizens have birth certificates on file.
Not everyone gets a driver's license, since car ownership is beyond their financial means, or because physical limitations prohibit their qualification as a driver.
According to census figures, about 11% of US citizens do not have a government issued photo ID (about 25% of voting-age African-americans and 8% of voting-age White Americans). 18% of those over 65 do not have a government-issued photo ID.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iuoru/eli5how_voter_id_laws_are_discriminatory/

@PPen: Voter ID laws require documentation? Of course they do! The whole purpose of an ID is to prove who you are. Someone starting from zero has to be able to provide some proof that they are a US citizen, and that they are who they say they are.

Just about any middle-class class parent will ensure that their kids have IDs of some form. The poor often have disfunctional families, and are part of a generally disfunctional sub-culture. I see that this makes their life more difficult, but there's really nothing to be done about it.

Simply deciding not to require ID is not an answer, it's an abdication.

Paper voting with a signature on the voting slip, with ID required to vote. Other countries do it, they aren't called racist. That we don't, is just so incomprehensible. You push a button, and assume it goes somewhere and you're actually voting? A few years ago, I went to vote and was told I already had. I wonder who I voted for.

Let us postulate that the points raised above about the difficulty of getting ID are correct. Without ID you can simply bus people around from poll to poll and have them vote multiple times or have them vote in more than one district. The joke in Chicago is the phrase "vote early, vote often" and that we have real zombies because so many of the dead vote. Anyone who thinks there is no corruption in the world is either hopelessly naive or corrupt themselves.
No, the solution is to make it easier to get ID. If someone is too lazy to get an ID when it is free (if we make it so) is too lazy to vote, problem solved. Yes of course there will be absurd injustices like noted above, but voter fraud is a serious problem.

Real vote fraud has nothing to do with homeless people or illegal aliens voting.

The reason the democrats don't want any ID requirement is because it creates a poll register of who cast a ballot.

For extensive fraud to take place you need to be able to manufacture votes in the back room. If there is an accurate list of who, and how many voted, that becomes much harder to do because you can, in case of a legal challenge or a recount match up the ballots to who cast them

Both gun ownership and voting are constitutionally protected rights. I find it laughable when claiming that the requirement for one is just show up while for the other includes background checks, fingerprinting, fees, tests etc.

"I see that this makes their life more difficult, but there's really nothing to be done about it."

One fucking thing I loathe about the middle class is what kind of condescending twats they are towards the poor. And this is especially true of poor people who eventually became middle class.

I've been poor and I've been middle class and jesus christ yes the poor are dumb fucks but not a lost cause where we just throw up our hands and say "there is nothing to be done about it."

Didn't you see Alkon's possible solution above? Maybe we should be waiving those fee's or providing services for them to be capable of getting their ID's. You coming from a dysfunctional background should not take away your right to vote. Plus did you know the government allows ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to get ID's?

Every study I've read said ID's don't really prevent voter fraud. But nah I should go with my gut that if you can't get an ID it must be cuz you're a poor piece of shit who can't get their act together and that should take away your right to vote. Even if that's the case why should the government take away your right to vote?

This isn't a "race" issue but one of class. And this country has always had a history of being an asshole towards allowing the poor to vote.

Damn poor people being dysfunctional. Fuck 'em and their rights amiright?

calling the results into question regardless of who wins.

When Clinton wins, you can be certain that Trump -- his inflated ego unable to accept losing -- will call the results into question.

There's an argument (perhaps valid; perhaps not) that the indigent can't get birth certificates in order to get photo ID. They reportedly cost $20 in Wisconsin. How about making a provision for the poor to get their documentation at no fee?

It seems reasonable to me to require photo ID**. And, if the barrier to this for poor people is being unable to afford a birth certificate, it also seems reasonable to have the provision you mentioned.

** The Commission on Federal Election Reform agrees. From Wikipedia:

In 2005, American University’s Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, wrote:

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.

Also from Wikipedia: In Spain, Greece, France, Belgium, and Italy, a government-issued photo ID is required to cast a ballot. However, all citizens in these nations are automatically provided with a photo ID upon reaching adulthood.

This isn't a "race" issue but one of class. And this country has always had a history of being an asshole towards allowing the poor to vote.

Damn poor people being dysfunctional. Fuck 'em and their rights amiright?

Ppen at July 30, 2016 8:48 AM

I'm all in favor of letting anyone vote who shows up at the polls. If they can't prove they live in the district (which is even more important than proving they are a citizen) than they should be allowed to cast a provisional ballot which will only be counted if the election results in that precinct are so close to presume that the provisional ballots could change the result.

As long as that ballot can be identified, and challenged later if necessary, I have zero problem with it.

However, this isn't what the Democratic Party finds acceptable, for the reasons iterated in my post above.

I've been poor. No-electricity-in-winter (those were some cold showers), making the rounds of churches for meals, walking everywhere I went poor. Know what? I still had a drivers license. SO no, I don't have a lot of feeling for people who choose cell phones, cigarettes, and beer over other items. No, that's not all poor. But it IS the poor claiming they can't afford ID.

Being irresponsible should not take away your constitutional rights.

Your rights are not based on your moral character.

Being irresponsible should not take away your constitutional rights.

Your rights are not based on your moral character.

Ppen at July 30, 2016 9:51 AM

Yes, they are, and yes, they should be.

Just try to buy a firearm with a domestic assault or a commitment to a mental institution on your record.

Voting has time, place and manner legitimate restrictions to protect the integrity of the Republic, and the process.

You don't have the right to bus in voters without ID's and proof of residency to a Philadelphia precinct, anymore than you have the right to sell handguns out of the back of your car.

I"m actually pretty radical about this. I do think you should be able to get a gun easily, without government restrictions.

I mean most mentally ill people use guns to kill themselves, which I think is a right we should be allowed. But despite the fact that the mentally ill are usually the victims of violence the restrictions are on us.

I do think you should be able to sell your hand gun out of the back of your car. The government already does it with drug cartels and in massive quantities and then looses them because they can't be bothered to track them.

Perhaps I don't have a right to bus other voters in but I should have an individual right to show up and be allowed to vote without an ID. I don't have a problem with needing to prove my identity, but it should be in a manner that is not based on my moral character. If I want to spend all my money on booze, cigarettes and then go on and vote, the government shouldn't take my right because I'm poor and irresponsible.

@PPen: This isn't a "race" issue but one of class. ... One fucking thing I loathe about the middle class is what kind of condescending twats they are towards the poor.

Damn straight, and I'll confirm your opinion: I want to go farther and impose some minimum requirements for people to be allowed to vote. Basic literacy, some concept of the issues being voted on, or who the candidates' are. No clue, no vote. There's nothing sacred or even particularly laudable about the idea of "one bag of protoplasm, one vote". Note that there is no constitutional right to vote: It is illegal to restrict voting by arbitrary things like race or gender, but there is no reason you can't restrict voting to people with a clue.

Just for clarity: My family also comes from pretty modest origins. The great-grandparents lived in dugouts: that's a hole in the ground with a roof on top. The grandparents were basically working poor. My parents generation: blue-collar or clerical. Step by step, the whole family - by now hundreds of us - worked our way up. The difference is whether you care or not, whether you see your kids going to a better future than you had. If you are working towards a better future, you can handle little challenges like getting an ID. Because you actually give a shit.

The people I have contempt for aren't the poor in general. It's the people who live in poverty and stay there. The fewer parasites like this who vote, the better.

Yes, you choosing to spend money on items not necessary, then whining about the lack of necessary ones like ID'S (if one wants to vote) damn sure should mean you don't fucking vote. I don't get to decide I'd rather buy beer than pay my car insurance, yet still get to drive. Life's choices. That many people make shit ines, is not a reason to allow voting without ID proof.

"Both gun ownership and voting are constitutionally protected rights"

WRONG in the case most people think is most important: there is no Constitutional right of the people to elect a President by popular vote. Refer to the Constitution, please.

----------

"Just try to buy a firearm with a domestic assault or a commitment to a mental institution on your record."

"...anymore than you have the right to sell handguns out of the back of your car."

I am surprised to see this comment from a competitive shooter; perhaps you are thinking of cases in particular?
The reason I protest is that mental illness is being widely argued now as not disqualifying a person from buying a gun from a licensed dealer with attendent Form 4473. Has this been changed? I rely on your professional experience.
Also, as a matter of the sale of ordinary property, the Department of the Treasury, through the BATFE, has long made a very practical exception to Federal regulation for those "who are not in the business" of selling firearms. I may indeed sell my property to whomever I please (of course, I expose myself to civil suit if I have enabled a crime).

"I am surprised to see this comment from a competitive shooter"

Involuntary commitment to an institution disqualifies you from a firearms purchase.

Not the same as merely being treated for a mental illness.

if you have an FFL you can't sell a handgun to an out of state resident at all without the transaction going through an FFL in the buyers home state. Rifles on the other hand, are fine.
You also cannot ship a handgun through the US mail, or ammo either.

The problem with the federal regulations on the sale of firearms, is that the prohibitions are regulatory in nature.

The criminal offense is selling or giving a firearm to a prohibited person.

What Hillary and Bloomberg want to criminalize is the loaning and selling of guns between friends, even if they are residents of the same state, without the transaction being registered by an FFL holder. It's a stretch because transactions that take place all in one state are not within the jurisdiction of the Interstate commerce clause, and would most likely be unconstitutional.

How you do due diligence to discover that a potential buyer is a prohibited person is what 90 percent of the regulations cover.

There are several cases about how many transactions per year qualifies you as "in the business" of selling firearms,

I have loaned guns, sometimes permanently to friends in other states, but I was in little danger because those people are already gun owners who have shot at Camp Perry for years, and the chances of them being a prohibited person are small indeed.

Like all regulations the federal firearms laws are hard to
decipher, and a trap for the unwary.

I have had many debates with people who thought they knew what was required, but didn't actually, because they weren't able to correctly interpret the statute. It's a mess.

It isn't just the federal law you have to deal with either. State laws covering firearms transactions can be just as onerous.

@Ppen: I am for voter ID laws as well, and furthermore, if somebody nearby came up to me and said that they needed to get an ID to vote, but could not afford to or had difficulty otherwise, I would help them as best I can, even if their political philosophy is different from mine. I want people to participate, but I also want them to be who they actually are.

Enjoy my run-on sentences.

I dunno, Amy... Gary Johnson is looking a little more 'charismatic' every day....

Oh for crying out loud!

Asking someone to prove who they are before they exercise a constitutional right isn't a "hardship."

And, as Amy has suggested - waive the fees for whatever paperwork they need.

But, many on the left are always complaining that the US is behind other countries in so many ways - well, here's one spot that the US should be more like other countries.

Show your f&cking papers before you vote. period.

"In fact, there's little evidence of that type of fraud occurring."

Repeating this does not make it true. Here are several documented examples where vote fraud succeeded in throwing elections, including the governorship of Washington State in 2004. And guess which party usually benefits from it...