I agree that voting should not be unduly burdensome, but electoral stakes are significant and high. This isn’t waiting in line to get a Big Mac.

If this is so discriminatory, then why aren’t the liberals organizing to help these people get the ID’s they really should have. We read about the big voter registration drives in the South that happened after the Civil Rights Act- the freedom rides. Why don’t Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lead the way to DMV and fundraise to help those who can’t afford the ID?

And so that’s the bottom line. There’s no excuse for not having an ID in this day and age. It seems the liberals would rather legislate ID standards that impugn the integrity of an election than help the downtrodden get the identification documents in question. They certainly don’t want to pre-register voters these days. Sad how far they’ve deteriorated.. from the freedom riders.. to being too decadent to canvas precincts on foot, registering voters. (It must be the obesity crisis.)

Tony –

2. I linked it in the other EDr thread.

3. That is incorrect. The GOP amendment would apply to ALL registrants, regardless of when they registered.

4. You linked an article where people were convicted of vote-buying, with no allegation that the actual voters were ineligible to vote. I don’t see the relevance to a discussion of whether photo IDs are necessary or legal – how would photo IDs prevent vote buying?

I happen to think the DOJ should push voter fraud cases agressively. Unfortunately for your position, this DoJ has pushed voter fraud cases more aggresively than any other previous administration and the result, linked repeatedly above, is 86 convictions in 5 years – in a country of 300,000,000 people.

Joe –

What’s the big deal about showing a photo ID? As mentioned above, the ~12% of voting age Americans that do not have photo IDs. The demographic break down of that group suggests that photo ID laws will run afoul of the VRA. In this Amendment, the photo ID would be supplanted by another government-issued ID (one that, incidently, has an associated cost to get), making it that much harder for that 12% to comply.

And the state issues ID cards that are not drivers licenses, so the “not having a car and therfore nothing to register” canard is 95%, er, 58% false to use Democrat math. The context, which you ommitted, to this statement was an answer to the question about were people were registering their cars.

“Each such applicant shall present [his] a valid federal or state issued photo identification card and either a birth certificate, drivers’ license or Social Security card”

That means what it says – you can show up with a driver’s license and a birth certificate, social security card or a valid federal or state photo id (like a military ID). Thus, one form of photo id and a birth certificate or social security card.

Second, I was just looking at the bill and couldn’t find the provision about identification that you speak of in post #87. Would you mind cutting a pasting? Sorry if it is a pain, I just can’t find it.

Third, let’s also remember that this is only a requirement for election day voter registration. If those forms of ID are too much you can register before hand like anyone else.

I find it very hard to believe that you can’t imagine any possible way there could be fraud without requiring an ID. It just doesn’t make sense – you’re a smart guy Gabe.

Fourth, you talk about “the myth of organized voter fraud” but you ignore actual instances of organized voter fraud that happened.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20050630/ai_n14800048

It is all about priorities of an administration – I happen to think the DOJ should push voter fraud cases agressively and that voter intimidation cases are mythical. We obviously disagree, but both sides have merit and I think you’re ignoring that. In other words, if you think it isn’t a pervasive problem then fine (kind of how I feel about voter intimidation) but it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Remember the Clinto administration pushed hard for voter intimidation cases and got nothing too.

G-Bury Man – Take it up with the SCOTUS. That students can vote where they live at school (which is about 10 months of the year) has been established law for more than 20 years. That voter registration is not illegal; it has been specifically condoned by the SCOTUS.

These students should be required to vote where they live; not where they go to school.

These drive by voters can give two sh**s about the community.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see an answer to my simple question:

What would you do to confirm that someone who wants to vote is both a citizen and registered to do so?

I didn’t say anything about voter fraud (even though I strongly disagree with your opinion, but that’s neither here nor there). Let’s keep our eye on the ball here. What would you do to confirm that someone who wants to vote is both a citizen and registered to do so? It’s a simple question, really.

This is the doing of the limousine liberals. Instead of trying to enfranchise minorities (lest they start voting reublican), let’s enable a system that makes election fraud possible. Instead of lifting the unfortunate up to our level, let’s stoop down to theirs. Public housing is the same wy. I speak first hand, having lived in a building “in transition”. Limousine liberals use public housing to warehouse elements of society they consider undesirable instead of trying to rehabilitate them. That’s why the redevelopment of my building caused so much outcry- it took the public dole patronage away from the liberals,by eliminating their authority over those receiving government aid.

If they wish not to registrar one’s car they should have to vote in absentee where legal residence is.

Voters should be vested in a community.

I had to delete your comment because something in it was messing up the template of the site. I have no idea why. Could you repost what you said? Sorry about the deletion (not your fault)–but I couldn’t even see the full page of this post anymore.

G-Bury Man @ 1 – I dont have a problem with two forms of id. Why should anyone? The 12% of voting-age Americans without photo ID have a legitimate gripe – add to that the financial and time burden placed to get replacement SS and/or birth certificates (or the impossibility of getting non-existent replacements) and there is a problem.

ACR @ 2 – Yes yes, I’m quite sure it’s somehow racist. The fact that those horrible republicans insist on some sort of ID surely makes it some sort of evil plot. I think you are missing the point of what I was saying regarding the Voting Rights Act. Under the VRA, the intent of the legislation (whether Republicans are promoting legislation because they want to help little old ladies across the street or because they want to push them into the path of a bus) is irrelevant – only a disparate impact on a protected group, and not a discriminatory intent, is what counts.

UnionThug @ 7 – The Supreme Court upheld in 2006 Arizona’s photo ID requirement when registering. They did not. They might indeed do that, when the case gets to them, but it is currently before the 9th Circuit for substantitive arguments. What the Court did in 2006 was strike down a 9th Circuit stay of implementation issued without reasons due to its proximity to election day (incidently, the 9th Circuit was reacting to a District Court ruling denying a stay without comment; the DC later released an opinion, but the case went directly to the SCOTUS without comment by the 9th). And to your question at 3, those statutes are currently being challenged in the respective states – as far as I know, none have yet made it to the SCOTUS.

D-R @ 10 – If you do not want to go through with that, get off your dead ass and register in advance of the election where you do not need to provide such info. Under the Amendment in question, all electors who register to vote in person, regardless of when, would be required to provide these forms of identification. This amendment, which could be added to a bill designed to make registering to vote easier, would actually make registering to vote harder – for EDR and non-EDR registrants. Interestingly, it makes no mention of mail-in registration – if the amendment passes, people who show up in person would have to show two government-issued forms of ID while mail-in registrants would be able to register with a utility bill.

Architect @ 13 and UT @ 15 – What part of this sentence (aside from the extremely poor grammer, I blame how early it was and apologize) – [T]he GOP Amendment would require either two forms of photo ID or one picture ID and either a Social Security Card or a Birth Certificate are necessary to register to vote! – do you have a problem with?

And Architect – Where exactly am I accusing anyone of racisim? In fact I specifically state that only the impact and not the intent of the legislation matters to the analysis and speculate that partisan political advantage is the basis for the amendment.

Republitarian @ 17 – We have had this discussion before in various threads on similiar topics, so I stand by my assertion here that there is nothing to suggest that the kind of systematic voter fraud that keeps you up at night exists. This is a solution in search of a problem.

D_R @ 44 – You have to show ID every year when you show up to vote, at least where I vote. Even when it is a person you have known your entire life doing the check-ins in fact. You do not, under CT law, have to show ID (so long as you either registered in person or voted in at least one federal election since you registered by mail) – you can sign a statement under penalty of perjury that you are who you say you are. Of course, asking for driver’s licenses is convenient for poll workers (especially since thats what most people would use anyway) and I suspect that some are unaware of the obscure details of Title 9.

Genghis @ 58 – As I linked on one of the other posts, other states have found that there costs/staffing demands have remained fairly constant by EDR eliminating the need for provisional ballots – it might be why the town clerks are behind the legislation and why there were several registrars testifying in favor at the GAE public hearing.

Jack Dobb @ 63 – We have walked this ground together already, no need to do it again – I stand by what I wrote here, in the post and in the comments (add to that the facts, linked above, that the major advocacy group arguing that there is voter fraud has vanished and that it is becoming increasingly apparant that USAs were fired for not persuing meritless voter fraud claims).

J. Bailey @ 64 – The SCOTUS has said that college students can register and vote at their school address – whether EDR is passed or not, that will not change. There doesn’t seem to be anything biased about this. I agree. The law does not require any bias for election laws to run afoul of the VRA, just a showing of disparate impact. And so again- why? Why would minority groups be unfairly disadvantaged by the expectation that all back-up the truth of their statements with evidence? That is a really interesting question, but, I think, the why is irrelevant to the legal question under the VRA (although a good argument can be made that the entirety of the reason is that 12% of Americans don’t have picture ID and that group is made up disproportionately of members of protected groups). The EAC’s (suppressed) report (linked above) concludes that there is a disparate impact on minority groups by laws that require a photo ID – requiring a photo ID + another government-issued ID can only make that impact worse.

To your other question, here is the link to the legislation which spells out the EDR procedures, including how residency and eligibility will be verified.

The politics of the von Spakovsky stuff is not material to discussion of the bill bill under consideration in the legislature.

The criterial may correlate to certain outcomes. But we can’t write laws on the basis of expected outcomes. I expect the evidentiary standard to be higher for EDR because there’s no time to verify data. It has to be right the first time because there’s not opportunity to check.

Now, amid a scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, Congress is beginning to examine allegations that von Spakovsky was a key player in a Republican campaign to hang onto power in Washington by suppressing the votes of minority voters.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/usattorneys/17256012.htm

Oh and arch, please spin on this; I find it amusing how you do it each and every time….

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17301116.htm