Isn't this Harley country?

In Wake of Indiana Petition Forgery Probe, New Rules Offered to Prevent Fraud

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/14/in-wake-obama-petition-signature-probe-indiana-democrats-propose-new-rules/

You can smell voter fraud in the air for the upcoming election.  Where's ACORN.  We need the brown shirts on every block making sure that you vote right er...left and maybe twice. 

"All eligible citizens can and should be automatically registered to vote," and it's the government's "responsibility" to see that it happens, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday.

"He went on to say that registration would be permanent following the voter as he changed residences, privacy would be protected, and the database would only be used to administer elections. "

Originally Posted By Epee1

You can smell voter fraud in the air for the upcoming election.  Where's ACORN.  We need the brown shirts on every block making sure that you vote right er...left and maybe twice. 

 

 

"All eligible citizens can and should be automatically registered to vote," and it's the government's "responsibility" to see that it happens, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Tuesday.

"He went on to say that registration would be permanent following the voter as he changed residences, privacy would be protected, and the database would only be used to administer elections. "

 

Frightening!

The list of things you cannot do without official identification of some sort is staggering, with driving being the most obvious example. But vote? Noooo, requiring simple identification in order to vote is unreasonable! Gag me with a spoon!

There is a reason people don't want to present id when they vote - then the illegal aliens and folks who vote more than once will be excluded.

^ Yes, but poll restrictions border on unconstitutional. What about people who cannot or don't want to get a government ID?

IIRC, Indiana recently put in legislation requiring ID at the polls. This should be a bipartisan issue against this, IMHO.

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

^ Yes, but poll restrictions border on unconstitutional. What about people who cannot or don't want to get a government ID?

 

IIRC, Indiana recently put in legislation requiring ID at the polls. This should be a bipartisan issue against this, IMHO.

What if people don't want the sanctity of voting protected from fraud and abuse; it that the real question?

I've been "recently" required to show a Driver's License during the last three Presidential Election cycles - in both of the Indiana precincts that I've resided in.  Those pesky poll workers have also had the audacity to cross-reference my name against a voting log of registered votes.

I'm telling you - it's Draconian.

The question here in Nebraska is "who pays for the id?" Requiring the voter to pay for an id is effectively a poll tax.

Paying for a drivers license is one thing. Paying to vote is a completely different issue. There should be NO restrictions on legitimate voters getting to the polls. The question becomes, "How do you verify legitimate voters?" (We currently use a signature system. You have to sign in when you vote. There is a check against your home address.)

Are we willing to pay for other people's voter ids? I don't see any other way to get around the "poll tax" issue. 

DoctorQuest perfectly summarized my argument. If you have to pay for an ID, then it can be argued that requiring an ID at the polls is a poll tax. This isn't about inconvenience, this is about not infringing the 24th Amendment. IMHO, this is the same issue as defending First or Second Amendment rights, if one is not comfortable with the state government using loopholes to circumvent those, then how can one be comfortable with the requirement of ID at the poll?

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

DoctorQuest perfectly summarized my argument. If you have to pay for an ID, then it can be argued that requiring an ID at the polls is a poll tax. This isn't about inconvenience, this is about not infringing the 24th Amendment. IMHO, this is the same issue as defending First or Second Amendment rights, if one is not comfortable with the state government using loopholes to circumvent those, then how can one be comfortable with the requirement of ID at the poll?

 

AFAIK, IDs are rarely a "one time" purchase (they aren't with the Drivers License), and must be renewed periodically (and if someone makes that every four years, it could be synched up with Presidential elections). If the money goes to the State, then it seems to be a type of tax. If there is a bureaucrat that can prevent you from getting said ID (and thus prevent you from voting in a Federal election), then the spirit of the 24th Amendment is infringed upon. Remember, the 24th Amendment was to prevent excluding African-Americans from voting through requirements that made them de facto ineligible - the exact same thing could happen with requiring ID to vote. Partially, this also hinges upon what proof of ID one needs to be issued an ID card that can subsequently be used to access the polls. Perhaps a state, like Arizona, wants to require Hispanics to provide more rigorous proof of identity, in the form of a social security card, birth certificate (notarized, of course), photo, credit card, etc. before these Hispanics can be issued an ID card or Driver's license. Suddenly, it is much more difficult for a Hispanic to vote than anyone else - a clear violation of the spirit of the 24th Amendment (not to mention the 15th Amendment).

I understand the voter fraud argument and the argument about this "not being an inconvenience" is largely moot. I'm fairly shocked that anyone remotely Tea Party aligned would support IDs at the polls, if they honestly maintain that pure Constitutional power is their end goal.

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

AFAIK, IDs are rarely a "one time" purchase (they aren't with the Drivers License), and must be renewed periodically (and if someone makes that every four years, it could be synched up with Presidential elections). If the money goes to the State, then it seems to be a type of tax. If there is a bureaucrat that can prevent you from getting said ID (and thus prevent you from voting in a Federal election), then the spirit of the 24th Amendment is infringed upon. Remember, the 24th Amendment was to prevent excluding African-Americans from voting through requirements that made them de facto ineligible - the exact same thing could happen with requiring ID to vote. Partially, this also hinges upon what proof of ID one needs to be issued an ID card that can subsequently be used to access the polls. Perhaps a state, like Arizona, wants to require Hispanics to provide more rigorous proof of identity, in the form of a social security card, birth certificate (notarized, of course), photo, credit card, etc. before these Hispanics can be issued an ID card or Driver's license. Suddenly, it is much more difficult for a Hispanic to vote than anyone else - a clear violation of the spirit of the 24th Amendment (not to mention the 15th Amendment).

 

I understand the voter fraud argument and the argument about this "not being an inconvenience" is largely moot. I'm fairly shocked that anyone remotely Tea Party aligned would support IDs at the polls, if they honestly maintain that pure Constitutional power is their end goal.

 

Since the TEA PARTY platform are limited government, less taxation and constitutional fidelity (limiting voting to actual U.S. citizens), support for this law is a natural.  Here is a synopsis of the ruling:

The law requires voters to present a photo ID at polling places. Those who can’t may cast a provisional ballot, which will only be counted if the voter affirms the ballot in person – with a photo ID – within 10 days.

The Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that “showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State’s stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden.” It’s also worth noting that prior to enacting the voter ID law, Indiana did charge for photo IDs. A provision in the law repealed that fee, presumably to rescind financial barriers to voting. Like Indiana, South Carolina offers free IDs to state residents.  http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/28/revisiting-the-supreme-courts-rebuttal-of-voter-id-detractors/

http://www.rockthevote.com/assets/publications/voter-id-toolkits/indianavoteridtoolkit.pdf

EDIT - Because purposeful stupidity ticks me off. 

http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php

EDIT - Because an Indiana State ID is not a new concept.  Neither is the casting of a provisional ballot in Indiana Elections.

EDIT - I'll say this more nicely ... but still to the point.

The concept of "Vote First, and Ask Questions Later" is consistent - and consistently originated from one group of people.

I wonder, when a homeless drunk pukes on their tweed jacket, if they pay out of pocket for the dry-cleaning.  Maybe they just charge it to a grant- funded research project.

Originally Posted By That Odd, non-government website about Hoosier ID Cards... which is not our BMV site
The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented.

So they do cost then? And the money goes to the government? Looks like a tax to me. Sure, one can get one for free (via an application), if one provides the "proper documentation." What, exactly, is that documentation and should the right to vote be contingent upon showing the government anything? My argument is no - voting is how you change the government, allowing them to turn you away based upon not providing "proper documentation" or paying even a small amount of money every six years is not "constitutional fidelity" in line with the 24th Amendment.

I'm astounded that people who normally distrust government power in nearly every other aspect of life suddenly trust the government to fairly provide photo IDs to allow access to one of the most basic and important political actions available to citizens in a Democracy or Republic. Ironic.

I'm going to quote the same Ben Franklin quote that gets thrown at me when I discuss Second Amendment rights - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Voting is an essential liberty, and voter fraud would have to be an epidemic problem to limit voting access to prevent it.

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

Originally Posted By That Odd, non-government website about Hoosier ID Cards... which is not our BMV site
The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented.

 

So they do cost then? And the money goes to the government? Looks like a tax to me. Sure, one can get one for free (via an application), if one provides the "proper documentation." What, exactly, is that documentation and should the right to vote be contingent upon showing the government anything? My argument is no - voting is how you change the government, allowing them to turn you away based upon not providing "proper documentation" or paying even a small amount of money every six years is not "constitutional fidelity" in line with the 24th Amendment.

 

Identification Cards

To obtain an identification card you must visit a license branch and present certain documents of identification. To obtain a free identification card for voting purposes you should state that you need a free identification card for voting purposes when you visit the license branch.

http://www.in.gov/bmv/2358.htm

If a Supreme Court Justice writing for the majority opinion in the Indiana case says the ID cards are free then who you gonna believe?  Or maybe damning the source is the culprit here?  Whatever!

... The majority opinion, written by then-Justice John Paul Stevens – no conservative stalwart – examined each of the objections offered to this day in opposition to voter ID laws. Let us review each in turn.

... "The free IDs and provisional ballots mitigate any excessively burdensome voting restrictions, the court ruled. Voters who simply do not have an ID can easily obtain one: “the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph,” Stevens wrote, “surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/28/revisiting-the-supreme-courts-rebuttal-of-voter-id-detractors/

I have no doubt that they can be gotten for free, it says so on the BMV website. But you still have to produce "required documents" in lieu of paying the tax. That means the state government can de facto and de jure limit access to the polls through the process of issuing an ID or can make it more difficult for some people to get ID cards than others by requiring more or more extensive documentation of identity. This is exactly what two of our Amendments are designed to prevent, with the historical precedent being southern blacks being prevented from voting.

Voter fraud can and does still occur in places that require IDs. So, to regurgitate more arguements from discussions of gun ownership rights, doesn't this system only prevent legitimate voters from getting to the poll while letting organized frauds (with fake IDs and other schemes) have the same access as they have had before? In fact, this very thread is about election fraud probes in Indiana for the past Presidential election, despite the ID requirement having been in place since 2005 IIRC. So what exactly is this law preventing?

There are much more effective methods for insuring the integrity of the vote. But neither political party is in favor of them. It's a 'game' of 'getting out' your vote, while 'repressing' the other persons' votes.  This issue is absolutely nothing but an attempt to suppress Democrat votes.

These methods are fundamentally anti-freedom and anti-democracy and anything they say otherwise is just a convenient hypocricy.  

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

I have no doubt that they can be gotten for free, it says so on the BMV website. But you still have to produce "required documents" in lieu of paying the tax. That means the state government can de facto and de jure limit access to the polls through the process of issuing an ID or can make it more difficult for some people to get ID cards than others by requiring more or more extensive documentation of identity. This is exactly what two of our Amendments are designed to prevent, with the historical precedent being southern blacks being prevented from voting.

 

Voter fraud can and does still occur in places that require IDs. So, to regurgitate more arguements from discussions of gun ownership rights, doesn't this system only prevent legitimate voters from getting to the poll while letting organized frauds (with fake IDs and other schemes) have the same access as they have had before? In fact, this very thread is about election fraud probes in Indiana for the past Presidential election, despite the ID requirement having been in place since 2005 IIRC. So what exactly is this law preventing?

No!  The individual right to vote works both ways.  Allowing fraud to persist delegitimizes an individual's right to vote.  Arguing that since a system can't be perfected there's no reason to even try is nonsensical.  The right to vote is extended to citizens.  How do you tell who's a citizen other than by some form of identification?  To use your gun analogy, just because ownership of a gun gives one an opportunity to use it illegally doesn't mean they will.  Just because the state can abuse its power doesn't mean it will.  We can better ensure that by limiting their power.  We can better do that by denying them or anyone an opportunity to rig elections using fake citizens which by the way the Motor Voter Law was designed to allow happen.

As Justice Stevens noted, there's no legitimate argument against requiring an ID to cast a vote.  The Democrat fight against such laws are merely efforts designed to protect vote rigging, and that's the kind of vote that should be suppressed.  True enough, there's always been vote rigging but we're at the point where it is now organized nationally and one particular party dominates that fraud.  It's easy to see which party; ... the loudest hen to cackle is the one that laid the egg.

BTW, claiming there's a better way to prevent voter fraud is a far cry from naming a better way.  Disingenuous diversion or flat out something else; in any event not worthy of argument.

To use your gun analogy, just because ownership of a gun gives one an opportunity to use it illegally doesn't mean they will.  Just because the state can abuse its power doesn't mean it will.

Should I ignore the irony that you posted this while below quoting Frederic Bastiat, who believed that the interests of governments were, by nature, against the interests of the people?

I'm not dealing in the speculative, I'm dealing with precedent. And the States DID take away suffrage, particularly in the south, when they were allowed to restrict access to the polls. You can claim we have progressed far enough with race relations to make this a moot point, but when this discussion gets brought up, it almost always gets brought up with the notion of preventing illegal immigrants (and that is a euphemism for Hispanics). You yourself asked "how do you tell who is a citizen?" - so even you framed it, subtly, in that manner. And from that idea comes the same impetus that brings about the laws that the 15th and 24th Amendment seek to prevent.

In Indiana, there were still allegations of voter fraud in Gary during this past election, despite the existence (since 2005) of the law requiring ID. I'm not convinced of the efficacy.

The Democrat fight against such laws are merely efforts designed to protect vote rigging, and that's the kind of vote that should be suppressed.

Meh. This argument was turned around in 2001, with Democrats arguing that Republicans were vote rigging. I remember the recent flap about the voting machines themselves, and that they were owned and operated by a hardline Conservative. Allegations of vote rigging always comes from the mouth of the side that lost the last Presidential election. To me, this is a non-partisan issue and I approach it more from the libertarian-style angle than any other - I don't want the State to have the power to limit access to the polls. While not requiring an ID to vote may lead to more fraud (although I'm not convinced), requiring one to prevent fraud is not an acceptable trade-off, given historical precedent.

From a personal note. AJ, it's been a while since we have spoken. I always enjoy your perspective and I hope you are still doing well.

Wow. ActionJack, do you ever sprain your brain with your convoluted arguments? 

ActionJack has a simple argument:

Good for Republican Party = must be good.

Bad for Republican Party = evil lying bastards who should be killed.

Is that a fair representation? 

I keep urging you to leave all those faux websites alone and get your mind clear. Go study some economics and history. Real economics and history, not the crap put out by ideologues making stuff up. 

You are stating that, despite all evidence to the contrary, organized, massive voter fraud by people who would be somehow stymied by a photo ID requirement is the major problem of our voting system. Can I just ask you to support that with even 1% of the level of evidence you demand from Obama that he is a US citizen? 

The readiness to accept the flimsiest evidence in support of your prejudices while rejecting overwhelming evidence that goes against your prejudices is the hallmark of a weak, immature mind. 

Originally Posted By son_of_montfort

To use your gun analogy, just because ownership of a gun gives one an opportunity to use it illegally doesn't mean they will.  Just because the state can abuse its power doesn't mean it will.

Should I ignore the irony that you posted this while below quoting Frederic Bastiat, who believed that the interests of governments were, by nature, against the interests of the people?

I'm not dealing in the speculative, I'm dealing with precedent. And the States DID take away suffrage, particularly in the south, when they were allowed to restrict access to the polls. You can claim we have progressed far enough with race relations to make this a moot point, but when this discussion gets brought up, it almost always gets brought up with the notion of preventing illegal immigrants (and that is a euphemism for Hispanics). You yourself asked "how do you tell who is a citizen?" - so even you framed it, subtly, in that manner. And from that idea comes the same impetus that brings about the laws that the 15th and 24th Amendment seek to prevent.

In Indiana, there were still allegations of voter fraud in Gary during this past election, despite the existence (since 2005) of the law requiring ID. I'm not convinced of the efficacy.

The Democrat fight against such laws are merely efforts designed to protect vote rigging, and that's the kind of vote that should be suppressed.

Meh. This argument was turned around in 2001, with Democrats arguing that Republicans were vote rigging. I remember the recent flap about the voting machines themselves, and that they were owned and operated by a hardline Conservative. Allegations of vote rigging always comes from the mouth of the side that lost the last Presidential election. To me, this is a non-partisan issue and I approach it more from the libertarian-style angle than any other - I don't want the State to have the power to limit access to the polls. While not requiring an ID to vote may lead to more fraud (although I'm not convinced), requiring one to prevent fraud is not an acceptable trade-off, given historical precedent.

From a personal note. AJ, it's been a while since we have spoken. I always enjoy your perspective and I hope you are still doing well.

I can respect your concern given past history but I think it premature to recall past sins and say there's evidence of present day wrong-doing.  We've clearly got a problem with the fidelity of our voting system and we've got an invasion amounting to nearly 7 percent of our population and it's being pointed like a weapon right at our voting booths.  Granted, there's a concentrated effort to make it all moot by just granting a blanket amnesty but since that avenue is not yet open, concerted efforts are being made to just circumvent our system; our laws.  I for one am more than just concerned.

I'm not following the Bastiat reference.  Remember in our system, the states elect the president.  The states should be able to pass laws regarding such elections as long as they don't trample over the constitution.  The Supreme Court has said they don't.  So your entire argument still seems rooted in 'what-if', which might be fine except Justice Stevens has laid out the case very clearly regarding your objections and it's still not being refuted beyond 'what-if'.  Without more I'd say you can concede the point.  An ID is not onerous nor is it any kind of tax.

The 2001 argument by the democrats is rooted in the Florida election if I'm not mistaken but the democrats were contesting democrat districts.  The democrat machine created the 'butterfly ballots' and ran the election centers in the democrat districts; Al Gore only wanted to recount democrat districts.  In other words the complaints were entirely in areas under democrat control.  The post-media-monitored recount had Gore lose those democrat districts he was contesting.  Heck, when you can't even win your home state, it's hard to be surprised and I think the message was clear.

On a less partisan but personal note, I've got no complaints.  Thanks!

Originally Posted By cicerno

 

ActionJack has a simple argument:

Good for Republican Party = must be good.

Bad for Republican Party = evil lying bastards who should be killed.

Works for me.