What is the problem with voter ID?
A few years ago I was in a local chain restaurant with my Dad, who was 65 years old at the time, and was and is today without a hair on his head. I never saw my dad drink a beer in his life, but it was his birthday, and I guess he felt like it was about time, so he ordered a beer. For whatever reason, he didn't have his wallet on him, and I'm not kidding, the waitress would not serve him alcohol without an ID. I realize you have to be careful, but really?
So there are questions raised in certain states about whether or not you should be allowed to do the minimum to identify yourself before you vote. Do we really live in a country where a 65 year old man can not be served one beer without photo identification, but you can cast a vote in the name of any person without any identification at all?
What am I missing here?
- Voter fraud is not a pervasive problem and there are securities already in place to detect it.
- It's another form of a poll tax since you have to purchase an ID
- It targets minority groups (majority democratic), and proportionately lower income, because of this poll tax. For example, 25% of African Americans do not have an ID.
- It targets students (majority democratic) because many only have out of state ID and non permanent addresses where they would otherwise be registered to vote, hindering the process.
- Voter ID policies are costly to implement, in turn hurting tax payers.
It's limiting access to voting, targeting certain groups in an attempt to push a political agenda. Exactly what voting is not supposed to be in this country.
Agreed on all points. Want to vote? Sure, but if you don't have the right kind of ID you better be ready to give the state some more of your money first. Sounds like a poll tax to me.
Bluegrass, what "you are missing" is that voting is a constitutional right. Being served an alcoholic beverage is not. There are already regulations to protect against voter fraud. If the ones in place are inadequate, then they ought to be replaced with something that doesn't attempt to circumvent the law against poll taxes.
Repugs are very interested in this issue because they believe the Dems cheat even though the facts I've seen don't support the notion that voter fraud is a widespread huge problem.
I don't see anything wrong with a national ID either, but many oppose it. With a tamper proof very difficult to counterfeit National ID many problems could be addressed.
- Actually we do know it's not a pervasive problem. Multiple non partisan organizations have debunked claims of widespread fraud. For example, A study conducted by President George W. Bush's Justice Department found that, out of more than 300 million votes cast from 2002 to 2007, there were only 86 cases of voter fraud nationwide and that most of them involved immigrants who misunderstood their eligibility. For even further reading: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/
- So you are suggesting already cash strapped states will be willing to shell out cash to fix a non existent problem of "voter fraud" to pay for low income IDs? Thats not the case for most states that have implemented these laws. Too bad you can't pay the $20 over the course of the 5 years. Many people, especially those who live in cities have no need for IDs. Now they would need one only for their constitutional right to vote. For a low income person to shell out $20 up front simply to vote, many are not or cannot do it.
- Just because you plug your ears and say lalala doesn't make it any less true. A 2009 study in indiana found that of the citizen adult population, 81.4% of all white eligible adults had access to a driver’s license, whereas only 55.2% of black eligible adults had the same access. A 2007 Indiana study found that 13% of all registered voters lacked ID. Here's some further reading: http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_39242.pdf
- Heres and example how it creates hurdles for students http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/02/01/Metro/21022.html
- "An effective, full-scale voter ID program can easily end up costing state taxpayers $20 million or more -- the three-year price tag officials estimated in 2010 for a program in Missouri. " http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/01/voter-id-laws-carry-hefty-price-tag-for-cash-strapped-states.html
AND I might add we ar still setting ourselves up for more fraud considering many deceased, relocated people, etc IDs are still valid and up for use.
to first reply: You miss the point. Over regulation limits freedom. A 65 year old should be able to buy a beer without going through a mind field of ID. Only legal voters should be able to vote. In Illinois this excludes dead people, multiple votes from the same person, under age people and people excluded by law.
Question? If a out of state student registers to vote do they not consider themselves to be a resident of Illinois. If so, they have 90 days to obtain an Illinois drivers license otherwise they are breaking the law. Don't Illinos students want to have their correct address on their driver's license? Would not a current Illinois driver's license regardless of address and mail with a current address not be sufficient to prove where you live?
Those over 65, those who are disabled, and those who are homeless can obtain a photo identification card free.
Do those who claim they can't afford the $20 dollars for a identification card smoke, drink or have obtained tattoos? If so, they could take some of that money and obtain a identification card.
Perhaps the state could just issue identifaction cards for no charge. That would eliminate any complaints about not being able to have a identification card to prove who you are when you vote. It is my humble opinion, there have been many fraudulent votes in Chicago over the years. Perhaps surveys do not show this, but talk to those who live or have lived in Chicago and they certainly believe some vote more than once. Some even go so far as to say that the dead vote in Chicago. But of course many opposed to voter identification don't want to believe the Democratic machine in Chicago would do anything illegal when it comes to voting. But what would those of us living downstate know about Chicago Democratic politics and the power they exhibit on control of actions in the state or who is elected governor in Illinois.
That isn't the point, bluegrass...
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that you should have a photo ID to vote. The problem is that it is clearly an attempt to keep some folks, folks who happen to tend to vote Democrat, from voting. It's a disengenous and unamerican trick. What are the reasons given for the necessity of this new restriction? Where is the evidence of a voting fraud problem that this new restriction will solve? Do you think the Republicans supporting these new rules would do so if the voters affected tended to vote Republican? Not bloody likely, and I have no doubt that if seniors, college students, etc. tended to vote Republican then Democrats would be trying to pass the very same photo ID restrictions. Typical politics, trying to win elections with dirty tricks instead of by actually doing more for people and having the most sensible platform.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.