Voter ID: Yes or no?

[Carolab]

One of my fellow election reform activists is having an e-mail fight with a Republican who insists that Democrats are against voters producing ID because we are "afraid it would reduce voter fraud".

Got any responses to this?

[New Earth]

1. yup

:puke:

voters are cheating left and right. :eyes:

actually, i don't see anything wrong with asking for ID - it's just unfair to those who don't have a form of ID to bring to the polls, and if they have no way to get one they are shit out of luck, unless there is some kind of program started to help everyone get ID's for election days.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. There's nothing

wrong with some sort of I.D. Other wise people could go to various polling places and vote more then once.

[trochanter8]

96. i think it's OK.

[Wabbajack]

89. Who doesn't have id?

It's hard to do anything without it.

[Verve]

111. I agree! As long as ID includes alternative sources for those individuals

who don't have Drivers licenses or State IDs.

[RaulVB]

2. Actually that will provide the fascist "rethugs" with new tools...

to "target" Democratic voters, primarily minorities, and they would try to prevent them from voting even before they set foot in the polling place. They would use any excuse to ask for those IDs minutes before the voter receives the ballot, thus, most likely the effect will be the voter going home and refusing to go through those inconvenients. Plus, people here is not very good at carrying all the documents they need to make regular transactions, anyways.

Is, pretty much, an intelligence operation.

[New Earth]

3. that could be the case

i guess i am undecided on this issue.

[RaulVB]

4. As in all type of businesses, Faye,

It could work if is HONESTLY executed.

That will not be the case. Only one side in this country is trying to play by the rules. It is not the republican side, as we all know.

[Wilms]

6. When I go to withdraw money at the teller window...

they ask for photo ID.

And I like that.

AND we need a program to get everyone voter ID.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. I think what

will be important, Tuco, will be who checks ID. The whole election process needs to be run by non-local, professionally apolitical federal personnel, held to a very high standard, on pain of dismissal without appeal. The higher the official, the more rigorously held to account. It would, of course, imply a Republican party minus plutocrat recidivists, least of all, at the helm, for all of this to happen. But it would surely not be long before US elections were as sedately and properly conducted as elsewhere in the civilised world.

Really, I would like to see your elections set up and managed by Scandinavians, French, German, even UK personnel, with unobtrusive on-the-job training of suitable Americans to take it over in subequent elections. Some of the on-the-job training could take place during elections in Western European countries.

Simplicity needs to be the keyword, to obviate fraud and intimidation. "Where there's a will, there's a way", can work in a good sense as well as bad. Cheap and effective government depends upon the sense of personal repsonsibility of its citizens. Of course the short-termist plutocrats and corporations, who know the price of everything, and the value of nothing, won't consider it cheap (until they are Christianised), because they will be paying - AS THEY SHOULD - very much more tax.

[skids]

5. The standards shouldn't be ultra strict...

(EDIT: I missed an important point, so added.)

...about what consitututes adequate ID. More importantly, it should not be up to localities to decide -- states, I could see that working, counties, no. The standards should be uniform with no room for misinterperatation, and we should take care not to have any system that could be used by partisan poll judges to selectively decide who can vote. Like for example, it should be mandatory for everyone, even people that the poll-workers know personally.

Note that privacy is a non-issue because ID or no, you have to give them your name anyway.

So the question really becomes -- is a phone bill, letter of confirmation of registration, or such a confirming document in and of itself enough to provide sufficient security? The case would be stronger for letters of registration, IMO, than the others. One might argue that such really only adds forgery to the charges we could levy against the few voters who try to "vote often" without preventing the act in the first place.

What it really boils down to, and I think what you should say to them, is that almost all Democrats would not be opposed to it in principle, just we don't trust the Republicans who would implement it in some areas to do so fairly rather than twist it around in some perverse way to intentionally deny legal citizens their rights, like Blackwell did with just about every rule and regulation he could figure out a way to abuse.

A system that might work would be that you can still cast a provisional ballot if you do not have ID. If you do not bring ID, then you will have to drop by the town clerk's office sometime within the next week to produce ID and have the provisional ballot validated.

[hughee99]

7. Yes...

The fact is that any voter should be able to produce documentation that
A. They are who they claim to be
B. They are eligible to vote
If people are allowed to vote without being able to produce such documentation, then this will undermine the whole election process. I'm not saying this is the biggest issue with the election process, but it is AN issue.

I think many of the reservations from our side of the proposed "voter ID" are not so much with producing an ID to vote, but what information the government will require to get such an ID (too stringent requirements will disenfranchise valid voters, too lenient and it will defeat the whole purpose), and the fear that this information will be used for other, more intrusive, purposes.

[RaulVB]

8. That's my concern and my main point

Thanks for making it more clear.

[Wilms]

9. What requirements would you recommend for ID? n/t

[WHAT]

95. would it be possible....

to give people without id the alternative of choosing a forensic type of id...eye scan, fingerprints(?)...that would allow them to vote. If this type of id could be compared to a data base it would eleminate over-votes, sort-out ineligible voters and give a more factual representation to typically unrepresented people. It would not be a requirement of the general public, but a chose for those wishing to vote who have trouble procuring id.

I hate to say this, but, I think there are going to be more homless and impoverished people dying...so, it could aid in tracking-down relatives, etc.

just a general thought on how to overcome problem of allowing people to vote honestly...

[sepia_steel]

10. I'm not opposed to it at all.

Even the most unfortunate person can get an id. I don't see why there can't be a place on every drivers' license. A checked box for example. They just shouldn't have to declare a party affiliation.

[roseBudd]

18. Actually unless you have been on welfare and knew how little money

there is for anything extra other than food and rent, then you don't get it. When I was on welfare I had a car that could not pass something we had called the Safety Lane test. I couldn't pass because one of my headlights was askew and pointed up instead of down. I could not afford to get my VW Bug fixed and so I just kept getting Safety Lane violation tickets that I couldn't affored either.

[dragonlady]

33. Constitution prohibits a poll tax

If the ID that is required costs the individual any money it would be unconstitutional as a poll tax. In Wisconsin we have a photo ID available from the DMV for those who don't drive, but I don't know if there is a fee (probably there is). The Republicans have been agitating to require photo ID of every voter. Besides the hassle of going to get one of these, there would have to be a way to make them free so they wouldn't be a poll tax.

[Wilms]

35. Can you think of a way to make the ID free? n/t

[roseBudd]

70. It's never free or easy because you have to find or get the birth

certificate, to get the birth certificate the poor person has to take the bus to the Board of Health and they are not open after 5 or on the weekends. I remember when I went on welfare how hard it was to round up the multiple pieces of ID I had to bring with me. Luckily my mom had my birth certificate.

Republicans do not want the poor voting, the poor vote dem unless they are fundies or rural.

[sepia_steel]

36. Actually, rosebud,

I was raised on welfare, and we all had ID's.

Thanks for playing; don't forget your parting gift.

Don't be so quick to assume.

[LisaL]

68. I have been on Welfare too and everybody on Welfare has

an ID-a Welfare ID. So, why not make it an accepted form of ID, along with a driver license, a state ID, etc?

[roseBudd]

71. I tried using my welfare ID to write a check at the grocery store when I

lost my drivers license and the store would not take it even though I always shopped there, it was for the exact purchase amount and the welfare ID was harder to get than the drivers license ID. My welfrae ID even had my thumbprint.

BTW not all poor people are on welfare.

[LisaL]

75. I never said all poor people are on Welfare. I personally was on

Welfare and all Welfare recipients have an ID. And if Welfare ID was ruled to be an acceptable form of ID to show when voting, then at least poor Welfare recipients could vote. The reason I would prefer an ID to be shown is because of real cases in OH where a voter showed up to vote only to find out he/she "already voted". Obviously, without an ID, anybody can show up in the polls and pretend to be someone they are not.

[roseBudd]

78. 3 or 4 cases of people showing up to vote and finding out that someone

already had is just a GOP red herring. That is not even a remotely practical form of election fraud. The GOP thinks big, that's why they use tabulation fraud and suppression, suppression, suppression. That is why they are against motor voter registration. Moss vs. Bush does not allege 136,000 votes switched from Kerry to Bush by 136,000 people going to the polls and pretending to be someone they are not.

Increase turn out among low income people and minorities and the dems win and the GOP knows that. This is about suppression and creating barriers. All 88 counties in Ohio got caught giving incorrect information to callers posing as former felons asking about their voting rights in Ohio. A lawsuit was dropped when the state said it would notify all former felons in Ohio about their right to vote by mail, but then AG Jim Petro reneged. Even if those letters had gone out, most would not have been deliverable since the poor who are more likely to have a felony record move a lot.

[FreedomAngel82]

23. For an I.D.

if you don't have your licenses for whatever reason you can get someone to take you to the driving place in your town and tell them you want a picture I.D. Simple as that. :) I think it might cost a few bucks or something.

[MadisonProgressive]

29. Not everyone can or does drive

if this is to be fair, we need a NATIONAL VOTER ID CARD.

[loudsue]

37. That's not a reason, and we don't need a "voter" ID card.

If people can't drive, they can still get an ID. If they can't get a ride to get an ID, how are they going to get to the polls? The local party officials can post their phone numbers, and people who need a ride to go get an ID can be picked up by the local party offices, just like they are if they need a ride to the polls.

A "voter" ID card isn't necessary. Every community has a place where you can get an official ID....usually the local office of the DMV. If this needs to go nation wide to help legitimize elections, then the local elections office can open up an ID place, or the courthouse, or the police station....someplace can be designated in each community to get an ID, no "driving test" or "declared party affiliation" required.

If we (legislature) decide to have an official ID just for voting, it should have a picture of the voter, and once the ID card is "scanned" (like a credit card) at the poll, nobody else in the state can use that person's name.

Either way, I'm not opposed to an ID, as long as it doesn't carry party affiliation. That should be private.

:kick::kick::kick:

[MadisonProgressive]

46. I think we need a federal voter ID card or at least

laws requiring the states to do so. There is too much wiggle room for the voter to be challenged frivilously without a standardized card.

I also think your idea:

"If we (legislature) decide to have an official ID just for voting, it should have a picture of the voter, and once the ID card is "scanned" (like a credit card) at the poll, nobody else in the state can use that person's name."

would be excellent if practical. There should be some way to encode a national/state voter ID which can be scanned to allow a person access to cast a vote and to prevent that registrant from casting more than one vote.

[UdoKier]

11. I don't have a problem with asking for ID.

If you don't want to show it at the polling place you can vote absentee.

[MadisonProgressive]

30. Interesting point...

How do you show an ID on an absentee ballot?

[BoomerSoonerOKU]

93. Absentee ballots must be notarized

and to have a ballot notarized you have to produce a valid ID matching the name and signature on the envelope being notarized. So, that's how you show an ID on an absentee.

[Dcitizen]

12. Yes, but no need to produce ID.

Why does anyone must produce ID without capacity to control of fraud IDs?

[Wilms]

13. So someone claiming to be me doesn't walk into my polling place.

:shrug:

[Dcitizen]

15. A biological GIS system. n/t

[roseBudd]

69. and that someone claiming to be you knows the last 4 digits of your social

and your birth date? And they can simulate your signature while being observed signing. Yeah right.

[MadisonProgressive]

31. Another great point!

[Bill Bored]

14. Absolutely no problem for registration.

Possible problem at the polling place, although I can't honestly think of any as long as the people are informed of the requirement well before the election -- not at the last minute as with some of the changes in Ohio last year. Even the election workers didn't know what the hell the rules were!

Tell you what Repubs:

You get rid of your unsecured, hackable Republican-owned and operated vote-embezzlement machines without paper audit trails, and we audit the machine counts randomly and unannounced using voter-verified paper ballots, and you can have all the voter ID you want!

Tell that to your friend Carolab (although I know you prefer 100% hand counts).

[roseBudd]

76. Inform them, how? In Ohio we had felons who did not vote because they

thought they were not allowed to vote. I had lots of people telling me they couldn't vote because they were felons, who I informed that they could and then registered. After the registration deadline passed, I ran into felons who I had to tell that even though they were permitted to vote, it was too late to register.

Are you personally going to walk around the inner city telling people? Or do you think they find out via the internet or the newspapers they can't afford to subscribe to?

[minorjive]

16. arguments against HAVA ID requirements

Congress passed HAVA in October 2002, purportedly to prevent the kind of problems that brought Florida’s election process international notoriety two years previously. Ironically, the law has come under attack by African-American leaders, by many Democratic officials, and by some voting rights lawyers for, among other things, requiring on Election Day photo identification or various other documents (e.g., a utility bill or bank statement) for those who have not previously voted and who have registered by mail. People who show up at the voting station without such documents will be required to cast a special “provisional” ballot.27

McDonald points to three problems with this requirement. First, blacks are far less likely than whites to carry such documents with them. Second, there is no convincing evidence that this requirement reduces voter fraud. Third, the requirement enables aggressive poll officials to “single out minority voters and interrogate them, asking humiliating questions such as, ‘Where’s your government check?’ and, ‘Don’t you have a bank statement?’”28 It is no surprise, then, that the ID requirement of HAVA, as well as more expansive ID requirements favored by Republicans and recently passed by some state legislatures, have been opposed by many Democrats and civil rights organizations, as well as by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters.29

**Footnotes**
27 For a sharply framed critique of various aspects of HAVA concerning minority voters, see Anita Earls, “Election Reform and the Right to Vote,” paper prepared for the Right-to-Vote Amendment Roundtable, 21 Nov. 2003, Claim Democracy conference, Washington, D.C.
28 McDonald, “The New Poll Tax,” 27.
29 See, for example, the conflict in the Mississippi legislature where Republicans have pushed to raise the bar significantly higher than that required by HAVA. In 2004 they proposed that by January 2006 all voters—not just first-time voters who have registered by mail—show ID, such as a driver’s license, passport, or work identification card. Andy Kanengiser, “Negotiators unable to reach compromise on voter ID bill,” The Clarion-Ledger (Jackson), 6 May 2004, 1A. This strategy of raising the bar for voting requirements is specifically opposed by the League of Women Voters. Among the goals enunciated by the League in implementing HAVA is the following: “Oppose efforts by state legislatures or election officials to distort the federal law by requiring all voters to show ID at the polls instead of just first-time voters who register by mail.” The National Voter, May/June 2003, 15 (emphasis in original).

from:
Chandler Davidson, Tanya Dunlap, Gale Kenny, and Benjamin Wise, REPUBLICAN BALLOT SECURITY PROGRAMS: VOTE PROTECTION OR MINORITY VOTE SUPPRESSION OR BOTH? A REPORT TO THE CENTER FOR VOTING RIGHTS PROTECTION, SEPTEMBER 2004,
http://www.votelaw.com/blog/blogdocs/GOP_Ballot_Security_Programs.pdf (PDF 476kb)

[roseBudd]

17. No we just know poor people don't have cars and state IDs are not free

Signature matching is sufficient.

[demodonkey]

19. As a pollworker who has actually had to DO the signature matching, I...

understand your concerns about poor people and the costs of IDs but I do think we need more than just a signature.

My own first-choice solution would be a FREE ID for all voters. If it had a photo, that would be best.

Checking signatures is NOT so easy as it sounds. The signatures are scanned, and grainy. In some cases the scans were made from signatures given decades before when the voter first registered. They are almost impossible to match. Even my OWN signature, scanned into the pollbook as it is, doesn't look at all like my signature, and that is to ME! I ought to know my own signature, but looking at it in the pollbook --WTF?

Some people just make a squiggle or a slash and claim that is their signature. How do you match something like that? Or should I refuse to match it and deny somebody (who may still be absolutely honest and legitimate) their right to their vote? It is a horrible responsibility!

I'm a pollworker, there for 13 hours that the polls are open, plus the time prior to opening when we get ready and post-poll hours when we count. Plus I have no training in handwriting analysis! How the HECK could I tell if every signature is genuine or not?

Again, I think an absolutely FREE VOTER ID would be best, IMHO. If we can afford $40 million to inaug. ** we can afford that investment in our Democracy.

And PLEASE understand this -- NO ONE ON THIS EARTH wants to see people get to vote more than I do. I would NEVER deny somebody their vote -- people died for that right and I honestly consider it sacred!

[roseBudd]

20. But what abouth the ID they will need to get the free ID? When I went on

welfare I had to get a copy of my birth certificate and that was not free.

[demodonkey]

21. Well we need to MAKE it be free. Or figure our ways around it, like

maybe if you have certain known people come with you and vouch under oath that you are who you say you are you could still get the ID. Something like that.

Incidentally, I think that there is way too much "charging" by the government for things like Birth Certificates, etc. At least the first so many copies should be free, or at least waaayyyyy cheaper than they are now. (Of course if somebody keeps losing their records and comes in over and over and over for the same record, maybe there should be a charge in that case.)

I'm sorry I don't know what the absolute answer is but I do know that when pollworkers have to compare signatures, it is pretty much impossible to do as a serious form of ID.

[roseBudd]

24. Poor people get evicted alot and end up losing most of their belongings

when the bailiff comes to evict and they put all the belongings on the sidewalk.

[demodonkey]

25. Yes, and THEN they lose their address and get knocked off the voter rolls!

See, it's crappy every which way you look at it!

No matter which form of ID we use for voters.

Maybe we need more community groups or SOMETHING to help people when they hit bad times. Maybe step in and help them to save their important stuff. I don't know... When I lived in New York years ago I think there was a community group where homeless people or people who had it really bad financially could go and have their important papers kept safely, and they'd have an address there so they could vote. As I said I don't have all the answers... but it's a darn shame when people not only lose their homes, they lose their identity and their right to vote because of it!

I was leaving the January 6 rally in D.C., walking back down Pennsylvania Avenue with a friend from the Green Party; we passed under that construction sidewalk shelter on the north side of PA Avenue (gray wooden structure, not far from where the J20 protest area was).

There were a bunch of homeless folks under there, and one guy says to us, "Hey, what are you all protesting?"

When I told him it was so that everybody would have their right to vote protected and get their vote counted he said, "God Bless you, for what you are doing... I would like to vote."

And I thought, damn! The 'Thugs won't even count "legitimate" voters, how's this poor guy with a construction shelter for an address going to ever even get registered let alone counted?

We have a lot of work to do, that's for sure. Rosebud it sure seems like you are doing your full share -- I mean this -- helping people to get registered and also getting the word out about the fraud, etc. We need a few million more like you.

[roseBudd]

26. When I was on welfare and living in public housing I was being evicted

for having a dog and I had Legal Aid representing me and they were arguing the technicalities of how a public housing tenant could be served, so I had 5 court dates. All day long in housing court the people are being evicted. The landlord always wins.

[Fescue4u]

34. Cost of ID is not a valid argument against

The small cost of ID is not a valid argument against id to vote, so long as its keep below a reasonable amount (like $20 bucks for a dl)

If voting was the only thing that required an ID, then maybe it would a major argument.

But the reality is that you need an ID to do just about damn near anything anymore.

Even if you are not actively showing it, one is required to have one most every single day if they drive (hence a Drivers license).

If you don't drive, and take a bus to work, the company you worked for required that you show 2 IDs to prove citizenship...and then they frequently issue a corporate ID, which many times is required to even get in the front door.

I went to the courthouse the other day to pick up some papers on a matter important to me. I had to show id just to enter the building. Why? I don't know but I had to show it.

The only way that one could avoid having an ID, is to be homeless, not work, not drive and rely on handouts for food. (and even then you'd proably have to show id to make bail on vagrancy charges)

I don't like it...but that is the way it is.

ID to vote makes sense and it should be done.

[roseBudd]

55. Another example of a middle class person not getting it...

I did all my GOTV in the inner city and especially in the area near the Drop Inn Center, a homeless shelter in SW Ohio, the people I registered and encouraged to vote:

Did not have a job, a car or an extra $20 for ID. That you think $20 is no big deal shows how out of touch the majority of middle class people are.

So the really poor, who are more likely to be victims of crime and eviction should not be allowed to vote.

[Fescue4u]

82. nope.

Im sure that $20 is alot. But not having an ID will create hundreds of problems, in addition to making it problem to vote.

Btw, this is a moot argument anyway, since you must have an ID in order to register to vote today anyway. This dicussion is about extending that requirement to actual voting.

If the law is followed, anyone who is currently registred already has an ID.

[minorjive]

83. But the law does not follow

There are currently 8 states that require ID on each trip to the polls, and the Republicans are routinely trying to pass this requirement in other states. See the excerpts from articles I posted below.

There is also plenty of evidence that Repubs are abusing the HAVA requirement that first time voters who register by mail produce IDs at the polls.

Most laws that restrict access to the polls originate with Jim Crow laws to keeep minorities from the polls. That's what the legal debates are about—keeping African Americans, other minorities, and low-income people from voting. All the other what ifs and what should bes are pedantry, since they don't have a whole to do with what is at issue in voting requirements.

[roseBudd]

103. You do not need an ID to register to vote, you need your last 4 digits

of your social OR your drivers license number and your birthdate.

Creating barriers for low income people is how the GOP wins. Higher income people have higher levels of turnout for multiple reasons.

Voter fraud is just a GOP red herring, that is not how the GOP steal elections. Suppression is their game.

[sepia_steel]

109. You need to stop saying that middle class people "don't get it"

a lot of us USED to be poor.

[LisaL]

67. Exactly. People who don't drive can just get a state ID.

If you are on Welfare, you have a Welfare ID card. Of course if you are homeless and living on the street, you might not have an ID, but I presume then you are not registered to vote anyway, cause you would need to have an address to register.

[roseBudd]

80. The homeless can vote, we registered them at the Drop Inn Center

and the director prepared affidavits stating that they were residents of the shelter even if they only stayed there when it got too cold. We had a special voter registration fair in the city park across from the Drop Inn Center with food and entertainment.

[minorjive]

81. more arguments against ID requirements (or, why rosebud57 is right!)

NEW YORK
excerpt from:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/voting/20020401/17/728

First, there is the straightforward practical concern. As many as 3 million New York City voters do not have a driver's license. Indeed, 1990 census data showed that less than 50 percent of New York City's voting age residents had a driver's license compared with 91 percent of the state's residents overall. Also, members of minority groups are far less likely to have a driver's license than whites; recently naturalized citizens (and new immigrants from Puerto Rico) are also less likely to have a driver's license. For many of those potential voters, it may also prove onerous for them to have another valid form of identification handy when they go to the polls. This requirement, then, could depress the voting power of New York City and members of minority groups.

Second, application of the identification requirement is likely to create a host of problems. An identification requirement will require poll workers to use their discretion and judgment. More discretion and judgment will be required when the voters use a form of identification other than a driver's license. Unfortunately, poll workers often get the rules wrong. The more complicated the rules, the more likely they will not be applied properly - and this set of rules could seem complicated. A study of New York City's 2001 general election by the New York Public Interest Research Group demonstrated that most poll workers did not know basic rules about where someone should vote if they moved or who could help a disabled person vote. This suggests that poll workers will not be able to apply an identification requirement properly. Under the bill, the first-time voters who fail to provide proper identification should be permitted to vote with an affidavit or paper ballot, with which they sign an affidavit promising that they are who they say they are. But, again, given the reliability of the poll workers, it is quite likely that significant numbers of voters could be wrongly turned away. In fact, New York election lore is full of stories about poll workers who do not know when someone should use such a ballot and denying voters access to such ballots.

The i.d. requirement also creates opportunities for discriminatory treatment. African-Americans have a history of being subjected to special scrutiny at the polling place - as have members of other minority groups and recently naturalized citizens. Stories abounded in Duval County, Florida of African-American voters being asked to show a form of identification - sometimes two - while white voters were allowed to sign in without presenting any i.d. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense Fund found that in the 2001 New York City general election one in six Asian voters was improperly asked to show identification before voting.

Finally, there is no evidence that such a rule is needed. In even the closest elections, there is rarely any evidence of voter fraud at the polls. And, the experience of states with same-day voter registration suggests that identification is not needed to protect against fraud.

WISCONSIN
excerpt from:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/mar03/129305.asp

Guess how many verified cases of identification fraud lawmakers cited in advocating a new rule that residents show a Wisconsin driver's license or a state ID card each time they vote? Answer: Zero.

That's right. Backers of the measure noted not a single instance anywhere in Wisconsin in which it was shown that a voter lied about who he or she was in casting a ballot. So the ID rule, approved this month by the Assembly, fixes a problem that lawmakers have failed to show exists.

Well, the rule won't do any harm, right? Wrong: It will do harm. This added step is sure to stop some eligible voters from exercising their franchise. That price is worth paying only if identification fraud amounts to a serious problem in state elections.

Ease of voting has put the state among the leaders in voter turnout - a tradition lawmakers should safeguard. Wisconsin requires proof of residency at the time one registers, not a state ID each time one votes. Right now, only eight states require all residents to show identification on each trip to the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and only one of those states, South Carolina, mandates the use of driver's licenses or state ID cards. That's company Wisconsin shouldn't keep.

True, for an overwhelming number of residents, the ID requirement would amount to a small or no inconvenience. But for a minority, it could act as a stumbling block to the polls, which should be easily accessible to all eligible voters.

The rule could keep from the polls: newcomers with out-of-state driver's licenses; poor people too consumed with day-to-day existence to take the time to get the proper ID; elderly or disabled people lacking the mobility to conveniently get the required cards; and residents who have misplaced their ID cards or have simply forgotten to bring them to the voting sites.

NEW MEXICO
excerpt from:
http://abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/223359opinion09-15-04.htm

Like most states, New Mexico has never required voter ID. New Mexico's checks on voter fraud include a computerized system that verifies that voters are real, live where they say, and are eligible to vote. Voting twice is a crime, and voters' signatures are in county clerks' records for comparison.

Voter ID requirements have been shown to interfere with balloting by students and by voters who don't: drive; have a utility bill in their name; bring "proper ID" to the polls; or understand the complicated procedure for providing ID to vote absentee.

An ID requirement, particularly one imposed at the last minute, would effectively turn many lawful voters away.

Two weeks ago, despite these facts, Republican Party lawyers concocted a "voter ID" controversy by loudly proclaiming their "shocking discovery" that voter registration groups had filed "at least 3,000 fraudulent registrations in Bernalillo County alone." This provoked the public freakout the Republicans wanted. Their charge, however, turned out to be fabricated. When their lead plaintiff was under oath, he had to admit they had no evidence of fraud. The "3,000 fraudulent registrations" were duplicates, forms with illegible addresses, omitted Social Security numbers, unsigned forms and the like. In other words, just what you would expect among 60,000 new registrations. None were added to the voter rolls, nor could they have resulted in a fraudulent vote. The only arguably "fraudulent" registration apparently was a teenager's prank that would have been routinely screened out during computerized cross-checking of Social Security numbers.

In court, the director of the Bureau of Elections and a county clerk's representative carefully explained how New Mexico's databases eliminate felons, dead people, people who have moved away, and other ineligible voters.

National studies confirm the United States does not have the "voting fraud" problem the Republicans are braying about. What we do have is a pattern of exclusion of lawful voters. This is the ugly picture that emerged in Florida where thousands of black voters were wrongfully denied the vote. It does not take a vivid imagination to know what a requirement for "proper ID" would translate into in Florida or, for that matter, what kind of chaos would reign at New Mexico polls if a last-minute "voter ID" requirement were imposed on thousands of new voters when there is no agreement on what constitutes a valid ID. --snip--


So why are the Republicans beating the drum for voter ID for new registrants? The answer is simple. There are more than 120,000 new registrants in New Mexico— 44 percent Democrats, 24 percent Republicans and the rest "Independent" or "Won't Say."

Add to that the fact that ID requirements historically disrupt voting by students, minorities (particularly Native Americans in remote areas), the institutionalized elderly and the poor. These groups (surprise!) tend to vote Democratic. If you think the Republicans would be demanding voter ID if new-voter numbers were reversed, I have a bridge to sell you.

The percentages being what they are, a voter ID requirement would likely shave a couple of points off the Democrats' margin in this swing state. Republicans are about as concerned with "voter fraud" as they are with protecting the spotted owl. They want the chaos and vote suppression they managed in Florida.

[Wilms]

97. MJ, thank you for the great post.

I've been sympathetic to calls for ID, but after reading your post I've cooled to the a bit.

The least compelling argument:

"The i.d. requirement also creates opportunities for discriminatory treatment. African-Americans have a history of being subjected to special scrutiny at the polling place - as have members of other minority groups and recently naturalized citizens. Stories abounded in Duval County, Florida of African-American voters being asked to show a form of identification - sometimes two - while white voters were allowed to sign in without presenting any i.d. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense Fund found that in the 2001 New York City general election one in six Asian voters was improperly asked to show identification before voting."

If everyone is asked for ID, it's hard to make a case for discrimination.

The most compelling argument:

"National studies confirm the United States does not have the "voting fraud" problem the Republicans are braying about. What we do have is a pattern of exclusion of lawful voters. This is the ugly picture that emerged in Florida where thousands of black voters were wrongfully denied the vote. It does not take a vivid imagination to know what a requirement for "proper ID" would translate into in Florida or, for that matter, what kind of chaos would reign at New Mexico polls if a last-minute "voter ID" requirement were imposed on thousands of new voters when there is no agreement on what constitutes a valid ID."

Again, thanks for the helpful info.

[minorjive]

100. how often do people are people actually willing to say

"hey, you've changed my mind."

That's very cool of you to say, wilms.

To me both paragraphs are about ways that racism operates and gets used to the same effect: suppressing minority votes. You and I may have different ideas about, or experiences of, how racism actually plays itself out in polling places and elsewhere.

The way I see it, the fact that we have this states' rights voting system, with substantially different rules and standards from state to state, is all about leaving room for different kinds of partisan manipulation and control of the voting process. Each place gets to have its own special mix of exclusionary rules and more individually targetted intimidation.

Anyway, you're welcome. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[MadisonProgressive]

28. IF.....

An ID would be issued 'specifically' for voting, and there was a way to ensure that every registered person ACTUALLY KNOWS they need one and can GET one, I would be all for it. Maybe make EVERYONE in the country re-register in person and get their voter ID on the spot.

Those are a lot of IF's though...

[ebayfool]

41. Right, 'specifically' for voting' & not misused like Social Security cards

have been. Also, not demanding overwhelming requirements for proof of identity when applying for the voter ID card. I do like the above post @ repubs get their cards, dems get to have paper ballots, verify & inspect the polling machines, etc!

All said, I don't really believe the biggest potential for fraud comes from the average voter - ID might be a plus, but most citizens don't need to prove identity to prevent fraud. It comes from higher up in the food chain. Partisan SOS, party level hijinks, methods that don't provide paper to recount & verify are the tap root of this evil tree. Diverting the focus to ID cards might be a tactic to keep the attention off where it should be, wide scale fraud at the top levels. I would also like to see proviso made that ALL legitimate provisional ballots are counted & added to the totals, irregardless of whether they would be able to change the outcome of the election. Some places do, others don't - from what I've been reading lately. Every vote counts, every vote should be counted - too many voters have been disheartened by the process when they learn their provisional was thrown away because the margin was to wide to make a difference.

[ebayfool]

44. Actually, I think I vote 'no' ... was reminded of a point from another ...

forum/thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1184229#1186615
Thank You to AP, I think this would apply to ID cards as well as the subject that was under discussion!
snip/

Voter participation rates are very high among conservatives. However, first time and occassional voters are very democratic (and these are people who are legal voters). Occassional voters are 2:1 Democratic.

Republicans want to do anything they can to make it harder to get those occassional, first time, or frequent movers to the polls, and this is how they're doing it.

I don't think the gain is worth that cost. We as a society should be figuring out ways to increase legal participation in voting rather than coming up with ways to decrease it.

[MadisonProgressive]

45. It would also help

to have better procedures and notification of precinct changes, etc., to try and minimize the need for provisional ballots!

[smartvoter]

32. Fine as long as it's a requirement for everyone on election day, not

a method used to challenge/stall/slow/harass people by race or location because of likely voting choices/trends.

[Hugin]

38. Ver are your papers?

I can't *BELIEVE* what I'm hearing in this thread!

You guys actually *WANT* a ticket to tyranny?

Sheesh, why do I keep on!

I'll say it again real loud and real slow...

IF YOU WANT TO THROW AN ELECTION DON'T GET TOGETHER
500,000 OF YOUR FRIENDS AND DOUBLE VOTE.

Someone will blab and YOU WILL GET CAUGHT!

*period*

Polling places should be *SO* local most of the
people working there will know you on sight.

This Voter ID and Voter Fraud issue is a DIVERSION
from the fact ALL of the VOTE COUNTING machines in
the US are OWNED BY THE REPUBLICANS!

Tarnation... Now I'm mad!

[demodonkey]

40. Are you saying that you expect me as a pollworker to...

sight-ID every voter? Yikes, that's a helluva responsibility.

What about people who have just moved in?

What about people who only vote once every four years? (Or worse, some only vote about once every eight years!)

We have about 1200 voters in my poll, mostly from one large housing development. (Used to be a rural poll with about 300 voters, but a big money-bags GOP developer came in during the early 90's and raped the farm next to us to the tune of over 500 houses!) That said, I think that I know at least 60% of my voters by sight, but there is a lot of turnover (these are very mobile "yuppie" types, moving in and out to find work with the most $$).

I'm not crazy about "sein papieren, bitte!" use of ID, but as a pollworker I don't think I can adequately be the first and last defense against fraudulent use of somebody's right to vote either by sight-ID of voters or by signature matching.

How would you feel if you came in to vote, and I told you that you couldn't because you already HAD voted that day? (meaning somebody already presented themself as YOU, and we accidentally let them vote using your name?) Or worse, what if you came in to vote and I didn't recognize you (or couldn't read your signature) and I told you to forget it and go away?

As I said before on this thread, I don't have an absolute answer but we need to figure SOMETHING out that will not violate anybody's privacy and civil liberties too much, but will allow some sort of meaningful ID-checking for voters. The alternative is just let anybody walk in the door, say a name, and vote. And that could be the oldest "voter fraud" (yes, Faye, voter fraud, lol!) in the books. Remember the old saying "vote early and vote often"? That's how it happened, and it certainly could happen again.

[Hugin]

42. YES!

I also expect you *NOT* to turn my vote over to
a corporate republican entity to be "counted".

Democracy is a "helluva responsibility".

The polling places shoud be much smaller and more numerous.
To cut down on those pesky lines.


VER ARE YOUR PAPERS!

[demodonkey]

43. WE count the votes here. The pollworkers. And I am NOT...

...part of any corporation.

Now -- my question to you, Prag.

Wouldn't YOU like to sign up to become a pollworker?

There is a serious shortage, nationwide, of pollworkers. Seems like only senior citizens and/or other "dregs" of society can (or want to) take the time off to do this duty for our Democracy these days. But I am sure you would like to, and since you are involved on DU, I am sure you would be good at it.

The good news: Takes only 2 days per year, plus training.

The bad news: They are two long, hard, boring days. Polls open here at 7 AM and close at 8 PM. You need to be here one hour before and several hours after. And then carry the results to the county courthouse after that.

The good news: you get paid (for the two days, not the training.)

The bad news: the pay is less than minimum wage.

The good news: You will be helping Democracy.

The bad news: You will take a lot of abuse and complaints. Including from people who think that because you have taken the responsibility of a pollworker you MUST be some sort of political hack, partisan pawn, or corporate cheater.

So -- when will you be signing up, Prag? Your local Board of Elections Office should be open tomorrow and I guarantee they need pollworkers. I'm sure they would love to hear from you.

[Hugin]

48. Hmm... Sorry to disappoint you...

"Wouldn't YOU like to sign up to become a pollworker?"

But, both of my parents, myself, and my wife have been or are
poll workers.

No apathy here.

[demodonkey]

57. Well good, then you know how hard the job is, and you should know how...

hard it is to get people to do it as it is.

Sorry but unless we get more pollworkers we are not going to be able to have more and/or smaller polls. In my area they have been having to close and consolidate polls, mainly due to lack of pollworkers.

And I still do not think it is fair to pollworkers to dump the burden of IDing voters on to them either through sight-ID or signature match. As I said I do not have all the answers, but there has to be another way.

On edit: You said people in your family "have been or are" pollworkers. So may I suggest that if any of you are not active NOW, how about signing back up? With Democracy under attack as it currently is, especially in your state, we need all the good Dem and progressive pollworkers we can get! (unless maybe your parents are too old, but hey my Mom is still doing it and she will be 87 this year.)

[Hugin]

59. An extension of that argument...

led to the centralized counting junk.

Oy, we're so overworked.

I'm not directing this at you "demodonkey" per se.

But, it's astounding to me how apathetic Americans have
become.

Lately, I sometimes wonder why I care. By all rights I
should be a RWer.

Maybe it's because I care... But, is caring about those
who don't seem to care a waste of time?

Empathy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[demodonkey]

61. It's not that they're "overworked", it's that they're NOT THERE!

We had one poll close and combine with another one when they only had ONE old lady left on their board (should have been 4-6 people and they had ONE.) Nobody else would join the board and help her so they closed her poll and combined it with a nearby one.

I am out of here for now -- going to a voting rights meeting.

[Hugin]

66. Nice hollering with you demodonkey...

Maybe we need more full time paid (and also accountable)
election workers so it's not as much of a last minute
scramble.

I know my state is one of the best examples of the
worst. I've put lots of time and energy into correcting
the problems.

[Joe Chi Minh]

74. "Someone will blab

and YOU WILL GET CAUGHT"! Not if you're a Republican!!! It doesn't matter if you are caught, does it. What sort of a fantasy world do you live in?

"The polling places shoud be much smaller and more numerous.
To cut down on those pesky lines".

NO! The only deficiency in terms of the logistics was that 63 machines were witheld by the Republican election authority, and strong Dem-leaning stations grossly deprived of the machines. That needs to be litigated and the "prime immover" face dire criminal sanctions. The size and multiplicity of the polling places would have been fine, had each been given it's due allocation of machines. Which is not to say that the machines were not a tried a trusted medium for fraud.... and worse than worthless for their purpose.

[Hugin]

77. :)

"What sort of a fantasy world do you live in?"

The kind where criminals and forgers are caught and punished.

"Which is not to say that the machines were not a tried a trusted medium for fraud.... and worse than worthless for their purpose."
I with you 100% there!

[Hugin]

39. TICKET TO TYRANNY! n/t

[LisaL]

47. I think there should be one.

Sorry, the way it is now makes no sense. I have come in, told them my name, and they found me in a book. They gave me this book to sign, and my signature from my voting application was on the left. I signed on the right. If somebody wanted to vote multiple times, they could say they are someone else, sign in the book, and vote. All they would need is a list of eligible voters, and to know who didn't show up.
I think the potential for FRAUD without an ID is high.

[Hugin]

49. Uh huh...

And so the "poll workers" aren't going to recognize faces say
the second and third time through the line?

This issue is a DIVERSION.

Why steal one or two votes when you can steal thousands, hundreds of
thousands, or millions through the centralized corporate run tabulation
software?

Sounds pretty inefficient to me.

Oh... And what if one of those "No shows" accidentally shows
up? Your whole scheme is blown. What I hear is this actually
happened in Ohio.

[Hugin]

50. With this hogwash...

What's to keep someone from stealing the Voter ID paperwork
and forging up, say, a couple thousand fakes?

It's BULL!

Sheesh, what a lazy people we have become.

There were cases where IDs were so easy to obtain in
Afghanistan the press members were picking up two or
three as a joke.

What's next? You want we should wear a big red D,
a pink triangle, or a yellow star when we vote so
ID is easy for the cagers?

[LisaL]

63. What would stop someone from kidnapping all real voters and

voting for them instead? What would stop someone...
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[LisaL]

62. It happened because there is no ID required.

God only knows how many people actually voted for someone else. I fail to see what is the problem of showing your ID when you vote.
It should cut down on FRAUD. Of course, if one assumes they are going to steal votes anyway trough tabulators and DIEBOLD, one shouldn't bother to vote at all.

[GetTheRightVote]

51. Sound like the Repuke is coming up w/ excuses to fight Dems

:kick:

[bush_is_wacko]

52. When I voted this year I presented my voter ID card,

my drivers license, AND a current electric bill. I have no problem with a voter ID card as long as it doesn't contain a Radio frequency tracking device!

I work in the public school system. The reality from my point of view in teaching is that the overwhelming majority of teachers are Democrats. Administrators tend toward Republican. In order to work in any position within the school system you MUST be fingerprinted and have a criminal background check and, in some cases, a driving record on file. All of us do this willingly. Making it a requirement to produce a paper ID card at the polls is most certainly NOT going to keep me or anyone else I know from voting.

My only concern is that Republican BOE officials would use this as a way to stop Democrats by voting by NOT mailing the cards out to registered Democrats! THAT would be just one more way for them to hold another fraudulent election!

[Hugin]

53. Brace yourself...

"My only concern is that Republican BOE officials would use this as a way to stop Democrats by voting by NOT mailing the cards out to registered Democrats! THAT would be just one more way for them to hold another fraudulent election!"

It's already happening... (I'm searching for the link now.)

Apparently the SES and political appointees who are registered as republicans got a 5% higher pay raise than the others.

Can I help anyone sew on their big red "D"s?

[bush_is_wacko]

54. This is crap! We could counteract this by Mailing lists telling Dems to

overwhelm the registration offices and DEMAND their voter registration cards on the spot. Honestly, it wouldn't take that many people to overwhelm those tiny offices and stratigical placed bumper stickers and or flyers with the information could be very effective.

I figured that would be how the thugs would use this requirement.

[Hugin]

56. Anything to make bigotry easier...

One thing I've noticed about bigots like the RWers. Is
that once they hit the threshold of easy targets due to
skin color etc.

They have to find ways to separate out the "good guys"
from the "bad guys".

Because we all look so much alike... consarn it!

So, they employ methods of labeling people for easy
identification. So, when the time for the round ups
comes up it's easy.

People wake up! It's what this ID crap is all about.

Making bigotry easy.

Up until now... They've hit on "The Liberal Media",
"Gay Agenda" and "Liberals".

Trying to categorize people into stereotypes.

But, so far it's only been marginally successful.
Because their foot soldiers are too stupid to make
the distinctions. It's not efficient.

And believe me... Bigots are ALL ABOUT EFFICIENCY.
Take a peek at those ovens over Cheney's shoulder
for example.

Now, they've hit on a way to lump us together and
identify us and they are implementing it.

I *KNEW* this was going to happen when I heard
about the "Loyalty Oath" documents.

[bush_is_wacko]

72. Time to register as thugs? Oh, that makes me want to

:puke:

[roseBudd]

58. You said...

Making it a requirement to produce a paper ID card at the polls is most certainly NOT going to keep me or anyone else I know from voting.


Yes, anyone you know. I've been on welfare, lived in public housing, not poor anymore but my urban neighborhood is suurounded by poor communities. I see evicted renters belongings covering the sidewalk just a couple blocks from my house all the time. I know how fluid the adresses are of the urban poor. The GOP used registered letters that were undeliverable to create a list of 36,000 newly registered voters that they sought to challenge on election day IN OHIO. These were newly registered African American voters. Why did the registered letters bounce? As a former poor person who had bill collectors or court summons (eviction) sent via registered letter, I always viewed a registered letter as trouble and would often ignore it. The other reason those registered letters bounced is because the urban poor "stay with", they don't live at. That's why you hear "where you stay at?" not "where do you live?" When you stay at, you are often staying with and you move around a lot.

[Hugin]

60. Thanks rosebud...

The truth always hurts... But, at least we're
dedicated to making it hurt less. :)

[roseBudd]

73. I did all my GOTV in poor urban neighborhoods because I knew if

they voted they were going to vote for Kerry. Though I mostly did street canvassing, the times I did walk lists, I asked for poor neighborhoods to walk. The walk lists were useless, there were almost no names on mail boxes that matched the walk lists, many mailboxes had no names, the majority of the doorbells didn't work and the people we talked to were "staying with" and did not live there. Therefore they had no utility bills in their names.

BTW the turnout among the poor was better in 04 than in previous elections thanks in part to groups like ACORN. But the main reason I think turnout among the poor was higher, and I sensed this from talking to people during GOTV is that the squeeze due to rising heating and gas prices and cutbacks in social services is that who is president really matters to the poor in this election. People would say to me, "we can't take 4 more years of Bush" and they meant economically.

If dems want to win, they need every vote and anything that makes it less likely the poor can or will vote is a lost dem voter.

I often said, I don't care if you stand on the corner selling crack, I want your vote for John Kerry. Just think 120,000 more homeless, alcoholics, crack heads, or dope boys voting for Kerry in Ohio and John Kerry would be president.

[mopinko]

64. NNNNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

absolutely no good can come of this idea. it would absolutely open a whole new door to voter suppression. and as others have stated here, especially make it hard for poor people. if you think having a drivers license is nothing, congratulations, you are firmly ensconced in the middle class.

i had some grief trying to make sure that my 'hermit' son had what he needed to vote for the first time. he didn't have anything current and official with a picture. but he is a very well informed voter, even apart from living with me. he did get to vote, but they could have given him a hard time.

no, just one more tool to keep likely dems out of the polls.

[roseBudd]

79. Even regular people have a hard time getting together proper ID

for certain situations like a vacation in Mexico or Jamaica. My husband came very close to not making a flight because his elderly step dad was always weird about keeping his birth certificate and then not being able to find it. We got very lucky and paid $$$ for an expedited copy from the state capitol because his step dad had adopted him. I usually can't find my title for that one time a year I need it to renew my plates. The fact is a lot of peopel are procrastinators or just not organized. Should procrastinators and disorganized people not be allowed to vote? Should the poor mother who was jus evicted and can't find her birth certificate not be allowed to vote? sholud the young unemployed black male who "stays with his sister sometimes, sometimes with his baby mama" have to show a utility bill in his name to vote?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

65. Yes Yes Yes. anything we can do to protect our right to vote! nt

[suffragette]

84. I think we need to really examine this issue and why it is being proposed

So far, most of the proposals for this seem to be coming from people who also focus on what they call "voter fraud" which is clearly engineered to place the blame on the voters rather than the system and those who ran it.

A quick googling on this issue brought up:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/090804D.shtml
Voter ID Problems in Florida
The New York Times | Editorial
Tuesday 07 September 2004

    There is no excuse for turning away eligible voters at the polls, but that is what apparently happened in Florida's primary elections last week. Under Florida law, registered voters can vote without showing identification. But election officials at some polling places misstated the law and tried to keep eligible voters from voting. In one county, the official sample ballot got the law wrong. Officials in Florida, and nationwide, must improve their poll workers' training and written materials to ensure that this does not happen in the November election.

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2873293&nav=2CSfVkEF

WLBT, Jackson,MS 01/28/05
The Issue of Voter ID Comes Back to the Table
A Senate committee (in Mississippi) has cast its vote to re-open a controversial bill that's been defeated in recent years. The Elections Committee voted 5-4 to require voters to show ID before they vote in any election. Some people remain passionate about this issue.
-snip-
"We're starting with voter ID, next year you'll have another little something, next year you'll have another little something, and the next year, you'll have something that resembles the poll tax," said Jordan.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=012505a4_proposition200
Feds OK voter ID rules in Prop. 200
Proposition 200 supporters have said the identification requirements are intended to prevent voter fraud. Kathy McKee, chairwoman and director of Protect Arizona NOW, a key proponent of the law, did not immediately return a call for comment yesterday.
A civil-rights group and Democratic legislators recently urged the Department of Justice to reject the identification requirements. They argued that the changes will hinder minorities' participation in elections and virtually shut down grass-roots voter registration drives.

And a search for Project Arizona NOW, the above group which endorsed the voter ID, led to: http://www.pan2004.com/
with the following screed
Our local, state and federal officials steadfastly refuse to enforce our immigration laws, to the point that America is now overrun with ILLEGAL aliens.  

So, why is this really being pushed and who is doing the pushing?
Is it really about voter's rights and election reform or about fear-mongering and exclusion?

And what info would federal Voter ID cards include and who would produce them? Diebold makes smartcard technology that is used on campuses. Hmm, does that name ring a bell? They are also testing biometric id methods on some college campuses to take the place of smartcards.

Who is framing this debate and what direction is it taking us?

[Hugin]

85. Bless you sufferagette.

Common sense prevails... I love it. :)

[roseBudd]

87. This is a red herring! The GOP wants us to be afraid that someone will

vote in our place and steal our right to vote. Think about it. This is not how the GOP will steal elections. The risks are way too high, that being the chance of getting caught. The benefits are too low, only one vote per phony voter and the labor costs are way too high.

As Fay keeps reminding us, it's the election fraud not the voter fraud we need to worry about.

Even homeless people have the right to vote. Anyone who gets robbed or burglarized can lose their ID. Anyone who gets evicted can lose their ID. Anyone who has no money can find it nearly impossible to get ID. Poor urban people are the democratic parties demographic. This is why the GOP wants voters to have to show ID.

If they are that concerned about voter fraud, ask for last 4 digits of social. The voter registration forms I used asked for either drivers license number or last 4 digits of social. Everyone I registered did last 4 digits of social. Since I double checked registration forms before I turned them in, I discovered many forms where the person had screwed up their addresses. This is because poor people often "stay with" rather than "live at" and I registered poor people and minorities because I knew they were very likely Kerry voters

In this last election we lost untold numbers of Kerry votes to suppression techniques aimed at invalidating voters, who were primarily poor and or minority and presumed democratic voters.

[Dcitizen]

92. Answer

On principle, the lesser info inside ID cards the better security.
Without needing to look inside these ISO cards, they should contain a series of assigned numbers like credit card or CD software style or a sticked barcode paper, plus voters' name is printed on ID or digital recorded so they can verify the names with the computer manually or automatically, and reuse the cards as possible.
High risk of vunerable system, not recommend.

[NationalEnquirer]

86. ID's sound like common sense to me.

Find a way to ensure the poor get ID's, maybe even a federally provided Voters ID.
I'd call their bluff, and be all for it!

[roseBudd]

88. There is no way to insure the poor get ID, we can't even count them during

a census.

[NationalEnquirer]

90. Then how else do we ID those who are voting?

[roseBudd]

91. last 4 digits of their social which is on their registration cards

Since you are so concerned about someone voting in your stead how about doing some research and see how often this happened and how Bush won because repugs did just that

Funny, when I am expected to identify myself over the phone all I need is last 4 digits of my social.

If you don't think that is sufficient then perhaps you are just one of those employed land owning citizens who don't think the unwashed masses need to be voting anyway

[NationalEnquirer]

104. WTF are you talking about?

It seems to me that voter ID fraud is a perfect tool for the Repunks.
Look at that guy who voted for his dead wife, Republican through and through!
I dont see why non-land owners cant have some kind of voters ID, I think they'd want it, no?
I didn't realize that was a no-no here.

[roseBudd]

110. That was an absentee vote, no amount of ID would stop that vote

from being cast.

Since you know so much about delivering social services to the poor, perhaps you can explain exactly how we can get that photo ID to all these highly transient people. Going door to door perhaps with mobile birth certificate generators and photo ID equipment? And to prevent them from losing their ID the next time they get evicted or robbed perhaps we can tattoo that ID on their wrist.

Tell you what, I'll meet you at Washington Park across from the Drop Inn Center and we will get started on making those free IDs you talk about. And then we'll go down by the river to catch the people that live under the overpasses when it's not too cold. And then we will go door to door in Over-the-Rhine to make sure all the renters who live in the turn of the century slum lord apartments in between all the vacant boarded or not boarded up condemned buildings get proper ID. Oh, but that is the part of town with the highest crime rate and you say you are scared to get out of your car because you are afraid you might get shot or robbed? OK well maybe those kind of folks don't need to vote.

[minorjive]

94. For the most part we don't

and there is very little voter fraud ever reported and even less ever proven. The idea that we have to figure out how to get IDs for voters is, as rosebud57 says, a red herring. It gets us into a discussion that distracts from the real issue: voting rights and voting access for ALL, regardless of race, class or ethnicity.

folks should care about the ability of low-income people to get IDs b/c they need them for other things, but when it comes to voting we should be railing against proposals to add ID requirements at the polls.

See the articles I posted above to see how the issue plays itself out in various states and why ID requirments add up to voter suppression.

[Wilms]

98. Click the link minorjive offered, above. n/t

[NationalEnquirer]

105. Whatever.

We should clear up all avenues of fraud, but focus, yes, on the more important stuff.

[skids]

99. You know, it's too bad Americans wouldn't go for "inking".

Really, when you think about it, the "ink someone's hand so they can't vote twice" solution isn't too bad. Why? Because it would take care of the majority of what ID does, with much less hassle.

Sure, an unregistered person could still go and say they were someone else, but you'd have to have a lot of different unregistered people that way, versus a smaller team that just goes and votes lots of times.

All from a little stain on the hand, which Americans won't do out of fear of it being carcinogenic or something. I suppose if you are elderly that inking might not be for the best.

At any rate, I have yet to see any evidence that this problem has an impact that even approaches that of suppression and machine/system fraud, so like I said above, don't support anything unless all the details have been meticulously worked out to prevent the legislation from being used for suppression.

[Dcitizen]

101. They must release QI info of the software CD/DVD to avoid fraud

before presenting new ID system.
Pardon me, the current E voting system does not have this protection.

The finish line is
Biometric, to reduce fraud chance to once.
State-wide data, voters can vote any places.
Automatic QI and audition, to avoid fraud. Will reveal later.

[lynne]

102. My state uses a voter ID card that they send after you register -

- if you don't have it when you go to vote you must produce ID that matches name and address on the voter roll.

The majority carry at least a drivers license and a card for the grocery store or video rental - not to mention our ATM and credit cards. A voter ID card isn't unreasonable when we're trying to improve the security and validity of the voting system.

[roseBudd]

106. My swing state had huge new voter registrations and I never recieved

my BoE card this year. Poor people do not rent from Blockbuster since they have no credit card, many do not have bank accounts. What is it about middle class people that they just don't get this? I realize most live in segregated middle class neighborhoods, and they do not personally know any poor people. Why is it so hard toprotect the rights of the poor, just because of some GOP fueled fantasy that fraudulent voters want to show up at your polling place before you can get there and vote in your name. Yeah right.

[suffragette]

107. I agree with you, rosebud

The ACLU and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) had to file lawsuits in the last election because some states were trying to enforce overly restrictive and selective state voter ID laws. And who was targeted by this voter ID act?

In Minnesota, they tried to enact and enforce the following:
Minnesota law prohibits the use of a valid, federally recognized tribal ID for election-day registration if the citizen does not live on a reservation. Additionally, if the voter’s tribal ID does not include an address, Minnesota law prohibits acceptance of the ID together with a current utility bill to show the current address. This in spite of the fact that the state allows other forms of ID without a current address if provided with a current utility bill.

The ACLU and NCAI were successful in winning a temporary restraining order so that these elegible voters could exercise their right to vote.

Here are some links on this:
Minnesota’s Restrictive Voter Identification Rules Violate Federal Election Law, ACLU and Native American Groups Charge
http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRights.cfm?ID=16914&c=32

ACLU of Minnesota Wins Temporary Restraining Order in Indian Voting Rights Case
http://www.aclu.org/VotingRights/VotingRights.cfm?ID=16934&c=32

Indians Win Voting Rights Case In Minnesota
http://www.civilrights.org/issues/indigenous/details.cfm?id=25891
This article also notes:
As many as 32,000 American Indians in Minnesota live off-reservation in the greater St. Paul/Minneapolis area, and many have only a tribal identification card for government-issued ID.

There seems to be a push on to get these enacted at state level (first) by playing on people's fears that a lot of "voter fraud" took or could take place and by saying we need more security. Again, does that tune sound familiar? Who keeps singing it? Yup, those same friendly folks who brought us TSA, the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

We need to fight this.

[roseBudd]

108. When the poor turn out the GOP loses, the GOP does not want poor

people voting. Voter fraud is not the problem, election fraud is. Don't fall for this GOP fueled red herring.

[Chi]

112. Do a poll, show them the results. ...N/T

[Rocky Top]

113. Kick,