There is however a clear rule against a poll tax, which is what these voter id laws are as currently constituted.
There is no constitutionally protected right to vote without ID.
It can only not be denied on race, gender, or age(>18).
Getting food stamps requires you to have a photo ID. If you are poor and getting government services, you are required to have an ID. Voter disenfranchisement is a myth, along with the voter fraud myth.
Food stamps have nothing to do with voting. And see above why its illegal to require a poll tax to vote.
What constitutes evidence of fraud? It's a very nebulous concept under the best of circumstances. Your claim amounts to an argument that scarcity of evidence is evidence of scarcity. If you had asked someone in 1800 to estimate the amount of oil was available in all of earth's reservoirs, they would have given you an absurdly low number simply because there was no way to know at that time. Now, since people actually check, we have found quite a bit. The same holds for voter fraud: how can anyone even hazard a guess at the extent of voter fraud when there is no good way to check for voter fraud under the current rules?
argumentum ad ignorantiamWhat constitutes evidence of fraud? It's a very nebulous concept under the best of circumstances. Your claim amounts to an argument that scarcity of evidence is evidence of scarcity. If you had asked someone in 1800 to estimate the amount of oil was available in all of earth's reservoirs, they would have given you an absurdly low number simply because there was no way to know at that time. Now, since people actually check, we have found quite a bit. The same holds for voter fraud: how can anyone even hazard a guess at the extent of voter fraud when there is no good way to check for voter fraud under the current rules?
lulz^This^
And well said too.
Fern
This is a false dilemma. Why is the number of legitimate votes suppressed greater than zero under any reasonable bill requiring one to show ID to vote? States which require IDs are also required to supply them at no cost. Certainly there is ample opportunity for someone to procure a free ID with years of notice prior to an election.I'd like the right-wingers to answer the following question honestly:
Let's assume that we know the actual number of fraudulent votes that would be prevented by a voter ID law and we also know the actual number of votes that would be suppressed by that same voter ID law. Given this assumption, what is the highest ratio of legitimate votes suppressed to fraudulent votes prevented that you think is defensible? 1:1? 10:1? 100:1? 1000:1? 10,000:1?
And if you support a high ratio, why do you think that a fraudulent vote counted in an election is far less acceptable than a large number of legitimate votes that voters want to cast, but are unable to?
-snip-
It seems to me that in order to pass legislation meant to address a problem, some proof of the magnitude of the problem must first be presented.
I challenge anyone to come up with documented proof of voter fraud from a reputable source that shows more than a couple of dozen people a year in each state intentionally vote illegally.
There is no constitutionally protected right to vote without ID.
It can only not be denied on race, gender, or age(>18).
I challenge anyone to come up with documented proof of voter fraud from a reputable source that shows more than a couple of dozen people a year in each state intentionally vote illegally.
Before you start looking you might want to check out the Republican National Lawyers Association which file a brief to support the new voting rules in Texas.
Here are the numbers. the RNL claims 311 cases in the last 10 years(though their 311 number actuallly includes cases back to 1997).
That's less than one vote per state per year. Yes, the best that the Republicans could come up with is less than ONE person PER STATE per YEAR. And it gets worse when you realize these were not convictions, but the number of people charged. Many of them were found innocent when they proved the were citizens, etc.
Here's some linkys:
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is...nore-the-facts
The above link is what the Republicans say.
The links below show the truth.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...terf034087.php
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201112120006
http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32633427_1_voter-id-law-penndot-ids-support-id-laws
I encourage you to do your own internet searches since there are many webpages devoted to this ridiculous Republican claim.
This is a false dilemma. Why is the number of legitimate votes suppressed greater than zero under any reasonable bill requiring one to show ID to vote? States which require IDs are also required to supply them at no cost. Certainly there is ample opportunity for someone to procure a free ID with years of notice prior to an election.
Originally Posted by nehalem256 View Post
There is no constitutionally protected right to vote without ID.
It can only not be denied on race, gender, or age(>18).
wrong. poll taxes are illegal, so is a bunch of other stuff.
most likely including requiring photo id that requires paying a fee, or affects any group of potential voters more than another group, if it comes to the court.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Naturally, you didn't respond to my question. Furthermore, you're answer amounts to "The laws SHOULDN'T suppress votes," and then you go on about how a responsible voter can always arrange to get an ID.
But we're not talking about "responsible" voters or motivated voters. We're talking about real-world voters. There may be many voters who will go to the polls if registering is easy, but will not bother if - in their minds - getting an ID seems like a hassle to them.
And this is where you and the rest of the right if full of shit, because you know darn well that "lazy" voters - who are disproportionately poor and liberal - are going to be discouraged from registering.
And this is a REAL problem because you also know darn well that liberals wouldn't be up in arms about these laws if they believed there would be no suppression of votes.
What I've gathered is apparently some people here believe that the only people who don't have IDs yet legally can vote are democrats, and none of them are republicans. This only affects one side of the political spectrum. And somehow an ID is equal to a tax.
Got it.
This is sad...
So someone is supposed to put an educated vote for the most powerful office in the world but is too lazy to register or get an ID. And then because they are too lazy and can't be bothered to take 20 mins to do something else, we are supposed to cater our laws around them!?
Just stop the lies already. I don't know of ONE state that will provide a picture ID for free.
-snip-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_lawsBecause of laws against any form of poll tax in the United States, voting must be made free to all voters. Several state governments have paid for and distributed free voter IDs to help them comply.[1]
Just stop the lies already. I don't know of ONE state that will provide a picture ID for free. So they are asking people to pay for the right to vote.
FREE Wisconsin ID cards for voting
If you are a U.S. citizen, will be at least 18 years of age by the next election, and would like a Wisconsin ID card to vote (although it's not currently required), please check the ID for FREE box when completing the MV3004 (Wisconsin Identification Card (ID) application) or when applying online. Otherwise, please pay the required fee. DMV service centers accept cash or checks only.
A free ID card is NOT available under the following circumstances:
- If you currently have a valid, unexpired driver license (DL), you are not eligible under Wisconsin law to obtain an ID.
- If you will not be at least 18 years of age on the date of the next election.
- If you are not eligible to vote in Wisconsin.
Honestly I couldn't care less whether voter fraud is wide spread or not. In the same vein, I don't care if this would hurt Conservative candidates or Liberal Candidates more.
Requiring a voter ID is just plain common sense.
Nobody can seriously be arguing that affording a ID card is going to stop hundreds of thousands of people from voting.