LAT: Little noticed, nationwide melee breaks out over new voter ID laws

[DeepModem Mom]

Parties Battle Over New Voter ID Laws
GOP-backed tighter rules are under court challenge. Democrats say they are unfair.
By Peter Wallsten, Times Staff Writer
September 12, 2006

PHOENIX — Little noticed by voters, a nationwide melee has broken out pitting liberal and conservative groups in a duel over new laws that could determine who wins close elections in November and beyond.

The dispute, which is being fought in disparate and often half-empty courtrooms in as many as nine states, concerns new state laws and rules backed primarily by Republicans that require people to show photo identification in order to vote and, in some cases, proof of citizenship and identification when registering to vote.

One measure prompted the League of Women Voters to halt its voter registration drives in Florida out of fear of facing criminal penalties. That law, and a similar provision in Ohio that threatened voter registration drives by other groups, was blocked in recent weeks by federal courts.

The legal battle reflects a deep partisan divide, with Republicans arguing that the new requirements are needed to prevent voting fraud and boost confidence in election results, and Democrats charging that they disenfranchise seniors, minorities, students and others who tend to vote Democratic.

Hundreds of thousands of votes are potentially at stake in some of the most contested congressional races this year and the 2008 race for the White House, making the court cases the latest battle in a broader war over election policies that has been raging since the 2000 Florida recount....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-voting12sep12,0,2159643,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[nicknameless]

1. Thanks for posting this.

Between ID cards and voter roll purges, the fight is on already.
Rethugs know that the fewer people who vote, the better for them.

Nominated

[C_U_L8R]

2. It's clear... republicans hate voters

[tbyg52]

31. Of course--

because they have been known to vote for the "wrong" people. :sarcasm:

[intheflow]

3. K&R

& added to the Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News Wed 9/13/06 thread. Thanks for posting!

[freedomfries]

4. K & R

[cyclezealot]

5. MO is supposed to have the most strigent law.

Requires a Drivers license. If not a voter must acquire a state ID . The state ID is like $10. Some have challenged it, since you might equate it to a poll tax.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. The state is supposed to pay for those IDs

BUT you need a birth certificate to get one and that costs money. So it is still a poll tax.

[ccjlld]

34. MO's law is really bad

You have to show who you are which means a Birth Certificate, Passport, Social Security card, or Medicare card. If your name is different than on you birth certificate, you also have to show a marriage license, adoption papers, divorce decree etc.
You have to show proof of citizenship and if you use a birth certificate, it has to be a certified copy. You also have to show proof of residency, utility bill, bank statement, etc.

When I renewed my driver's license this year, I had to spend $12 dollars to get the certified copy of my birth certificate from Kansas. I also had to search for my marriage license.

Can you imagine how many older ladies who have been married for 50+ years will have trouble finding that marriage certificate?

[cyclezealot]

36. Seems our Supreme Court has upheld this outrage.

[stlsaxman]

53. A Missouri Judge just THREW OUT Voter ID law!!!!

... stating it infringed on the rights of too many people...

I heard it on the local NPR affiliate this afternoon!


:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


AND just found this on the Guardian website!!!!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6081079,00.html

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[Seldona]

6. My father, who is blind, will have to get an ID after 50 years.

He has no need for one currently, and really expressed his dismay at having his honor questioned after 68 very productive years. Oh and he has been voting since he was 18!

Put one former republican up in the blue column. He hates where the repubs are going.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. When your dad was 18, the voting age was 21

It was changed in the early 70s from 21 to 18.

My mom is in the same boat. She has no ID, she has not driven in 10 years, she was born at home and has no birth certificate. So she can't register to vote. First election she will miss since 1946.

[brer cat]

33. I voted at age 18 in GA in 1960's. It was state law then

not Federal. In high school, seniors took a course in government, then registered to vote.

[ThomCat]

7. "prevent voter fraud"

Geez! Requiring all kinds of verified ID to vote is a way enabling voter fraud more than preventing it. It allows you to filter people.

The republicans who are pushing for this are deliberately NOT addressing real voter fraud.
x(

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Well this is a lie

Missouri has deployed mobile units in vans to issue identification to the elderly, responding to complaints that photo ID is costly or hard to obtain for some voters.


Um no they have not. It is in the law and part of a second law passed in response to complaints BUT the state has not budgeted any money for this and they have yet to send these vans out.

My mother's nursing home is still waiting for the van to come and they have been unable to register any residents unless their families have taken care of it.

[Rosemary2205]

10. Can anyone explain this to me please?

I already know the need for a state issued ID at the polls is unnecessary and presents a barrier for many eligible people to voting. I also know voter fraud (one person voting in the name of another) is nearly non-existent. What I do not understand is the objection to requiring people to prove citizenship and identification when registering to vote the first time. Although I would like there to be some leeway on what documents are accepted, because there are citizens who have difficultly obtaining birth certificates.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Where did you get that idea?

Who is objecting to proof of citizenship? I haven't heard that.

[Rosemary2205]

15. Here

From the OP

The dispute, which is being fought in disparate and often half-empty courtrooms in as many as nine states, concerns new state laws and rules backed primarily by Republicans that require people to show photo identification in order to vote and, in some cases, proof of citizenship and identification when registering to vote.


Atlanta Journal Constitution ran articles on this last year. The groups in GA were also fighting again proof of citizenship when registering.

I don't understand why.


edit to fix bolding

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Oh thanks

Sorry I missed that.

A drivers license is proof of citizenship since (at least where I live) you can't get one without proving you are a citizen.

[geardaddy]

22. What?

Only citizens in your state can have driver's licenses? What about legal residents?

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. I believe it is only US citizens

[geardaddy]

44. I believe that that may be illegal.

[galloglas]

50. Well, that's Oz for you!

Proud2belib lives in Kansas. That is where evolution is illegal (or was) (or will be again).

But, I think Kansas actually does give D.L.s to resident aliens, as they are residents of the state.

It all points out a confusion on this list with the use of citizenship and residence. Perhaps too much Bush brewed xenophobia and fear of the little brown macacas from down South (Sarcasm towards the Prez, y'all. No racism intended).

But, Proud2blib is correct about Missouri. Without one of the four mandated forms of PHOTO ID (as shown by the MO SoS website) a hundred year old grandmother would have to prove citizenship!!

[galloglas]

49. Rosemary, my dear, it doesn't say what you said it said.

There is no way that " in some cases, proof of citizenship and identification when registering to vote. is referring to First time registration. In Missouri, even folks who have vote or 60 years would have to prove it.

I had to make a Monster Post to PADEM2 to cover his assertion of "No problem for my auntie". It carries a bunch of info directly from the MO SoS office.

See if it doesn't require proof of citizenship of everyone with a current Driver's License, State ID Non-Driver License, Passport or Military ID.

And, keep in mind, it is the elderly or disabled who will have the most problems. And read careully what PHOTO IDs the SoS will NOT take!

The Post:

It establishes a "paper trail" to protect against the largely non-existent threat of losing elections to "Voter Fraud" (the GOP frame). But it does nothing to help create a paper trail for the lastest Diebold Cheat-o-Matics.

Btw, here in Missouri, a law passed in late May requiring State Issued VoterIDs. Our SoS got around to announcing the problem to the voter right before primaries. There are 180,000 voter (most all Democratic) who will be affected.

That in a state that could pick up one of the much needed five Senate seats. Yet, guess what? The only place that these can be gotten are at the State License Bureaus which are, after a sale this past year, are now owned by the family of and inlaws of Gov. Matt Blunt (Congressional House Whip Roy Blunt's son). Think they will stay open overtime to help out the elderly, poor, underserved, etc?

Not on your life. The sale makes it impossible for the SoS to compel the license bureaus to accomodate them.

As for PA-DEM's suggestion that you or I

"Take your 80 year old mom out for a valid state ID and a nice lunch, for crying out loud! Have her bring a couple utility bills and a social security card and you're good to go.

I have news for them. Missouri is requiring photo IDs alright, but a Driver's License, a Passport, or a Military Photo.

How many of our 80 year old aunts are still licensed drivers? Or with valid Passports? Or still active military?

Specifically excluded as IDs (from the MO SoS page) are:

1) Voter Identification Card
2) Utility Bill
3) Bank Statement
4) Paycheck Stub
5) University ID
6) Employer ID

So, if you don't have an ID, here's what the SoS asks you to do (on your lunch with the 80 year old aunt).

(Again, from the MO SoS page.)

"Here’s What You’ll Need To Do:"

1. Show Who You Are.
ONE of these will do:
* Social Security Card
* Medicare Card
* U.S. Passport
If your name on the card you show does not match your current name, you must show proof of name change on:
* Marriage License
* Divorce Decree
* Court Order
* Adoption Papers

2. Show You’re A U.S. Citizen.
ONE of these will do:
* Birth Certificate
* U.S. Passport, valid or expired
* Certificate of Citizenship
* Certificate of Naturalization
* Certificate of Birth Abroad

3. Show Where You Live.
ONE of these will do.
* Recent Utility Bill
* Voter Registration Card
* Government Check
* Pay Check
* Property Tax Receipt
* Rental Contract for Current Address
* Letter from Postmaster in Last 30 Days
* Government Document Showing Name and Address in Last 30 Days


Now, KEYSTONE, if you and auntie get that handled, here's where you go to get those Photo IDs.

Again, from the Sos Official Page

You can get a Missouri driver’s license or non-driver’s license at your local Department of Revenue office (average wait time 2 to three hours, without any extra people showing up for IDs). Non-driver’s licenses may be free of charge. To find the license office nearest you, call 866-443-4165 or go to www.dor.mo.gov/mvd/offloc. (There are an average of 1.3 offices per county, statewide! So, average trip would be about 70 miles, roundtrip)

Also, a Mobile Licensing Unit (there are only 4 of them) will travel the state to visit locations accessible to and frequented by elderly and disabled Missourians who cannot visit a motor vehicle license office. These units will provide an opportunity to sign up for photo IDs that will be mailed out later.(any chance of a slipup there?????) To check the schedule, call 866-443-4165 or go to: http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/voterid.pdf



Now, Keystone, do the math.

These Revenue offices are open year round. They serve an average of 100,000 people per month.

So, in addition to their regular business, you and your auntie, me and mine, and everyone else's, would funnel an extra 180,000 clients a month through their doors (open 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM), tripling their traffic during the four months until the election.

And a GOP Governor's cronies own them, and get no fees for helping you and Auntie. Really think many people are going to get taken care of?

And, BTW, you and your Auntie will be standing in a line for the whole, long time of it. So, is she healthy? Not in a hospital or a nursing home, I hope?

Perhaps you failed to think this through?

Or, possibly, you are also incited to near-riot by the GOP's race-baiting tactics. Talking (so suddenly last spring about all those illegal immigrants who used to pick the fruit that now hangs rotting on trees in our orchards throughout the nation? (Just asking, of course)

Do you really think Missouri's plan is workable???
How much time were you planning on spending with Auntie?
Maybe ought to plan to spend about a week on this???


ONE LAST THING for all of the closest xenophobes out there. A question.

Do you REALLY thing this is designed to keep Juan and Jose from south of the Border from voting??

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. (It stretches from the Alaskan Mainland to bloody NoWhere!)

[MGKrebs]

19. I am not aware that there is an objection for those cases.

Here in Georgia, we have long had to provide a picture ID either when registering or the first time voting after registering with no objection that I am aware of. These current bills mandate that you produce the ID every time you vote. It is unneccessary, it solves no problem, it is purely a Dem voter suppression mechanism.

Just think about what it would take to impersonate another voter. It is almost impossible to do.

Voting for dead people will not be solved by a photo ID bill. Someone who is willing to commit a felony by impersonating a voter would likely be willing to commit the misdemeanor of getting a fake ID. Besides, if there are dead people on the voter rolls, that should be addressed in some other way- like getting the list accurate? My understanding that most of these "dead people voting" cases are actually poll worker error, i.e., they check off "Mr. John Johnson" instead of his widow "Mrs. John Johnson".

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. I generally bring my passport with me when I vote

Although ID is not required in Washington (and probably never will be, now that the state is throwing away all pretense of oversight and going to all mail-in ballots), for some odd reason I feel the need not only to show that I am who I claim to be, but that I am also a citizen of the United States of America with all of the (formerly) customary rights, privileges and protections thereof. I do the same thing when I go to the airport, too.

[troubleinwinter]

17. A passport isn't accepted as ID to vote in Arizona

"Passports are typically acceptable everywhere as valid ID. Not in Arizona polling places. The reason they won't fly is that passports don't include the bearer's address." http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/topstories/articles/0910elex-polls0910.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. That is actually a reasonable exclusion

Presumably, the point of having ID when voting is not only to prove your identity, but your place of permanent residence too.

[gasperc]

14. so they stepped back from the DNA blood test requirement

wow, the GOP isn't pushing for mandatory blood tests at the polling place with a cross reference against a "known" DNA database.

why don't they just do it the way the have been, shred the votes

[VP505]

20. The number of ineligible people that it would

take to swing an election pretty much makes it a waste of time to try. What is more important is WHO counts the votes, that's where an election will be stolen. Repukes seem to want to draw attention away from the vote counters by making a lot of noise about who is doing the voting.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. HAVA must be amended with mandatory national standards including

a numerical-formula primary goal for every state and mandatory cost-benefit analysis, IMO.

The numerical goal for vote administration in each state should be maximizing the proportion of voting-age citizens (including prisoners incarcerated in- and out-of state) who actually vote in statewide and National elections.

Cost-benefit analysis must be mandated to at least measure the impact of "vote-fraud" measures on the primary goal. How many legitimate voters would be disfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented? If this would be over 1.000, then such a measure must be barred by law.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x449098

[wildeyed]

38. Really interesting idea.

I am stressed for time right now, but I will come back and look at this more closely later. Thanks for posting.

How will they determine the fraud amount? My understanding, there is no evidence of systematic, widespread voter fraud, just the occasional individual, and that even then, a lot of that type of fraud occurs by absentee ballot which are exempt under most of these new, restrictive ID laws.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

45. Many other Federal programs of grants to the states have such...

benchmarks.

For example, the successor program to welfare cash for dependent children requires states to measure how many mothers and fathers getting the money are employed (rather than tying the Federal money to child poverty reduction!)

When Federal "strings" are attached to grants to the states, they generally toe the line. To paraphrase Ross Perot, "You don't get what you EXpect, you get what you INspect by means of precise numerical performance/accountability measurements."

When money goes out to the states without gudelines, IMO politicians in power will use it to feather their own nests, in this case by suppressing votes for the Democratic party.

My cross-post to http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/13/145049/554 got some interesting requests for clarification. Unlike DU, dKos has no time limit for editing OPs, so I was able to try to make my proposal clearer, in response to Kossack replies.

[wildeyed]

46. I am dense.

What does "1.000" mean? How many disenfranchised voters per single prevented fraud are allowable with this system?

Even though I don't understand the math, it seems like a really good idea to use a systematic formula to legislate this type of thing. Otherwise you get into too much emotion and assumption. Middle class people assume that everyone must have ID because, after all, they do, and all their middle class friends do, too. I think there are also some racist and classist assumptions about people who don't carry ID. And then there is the stunning fact that there is no proof that any fraud has actually occurred, yet there is a huge push to enact this type of legislation by Republicans. Things that make you say hmmmmmm......

[ProgressiveEconomist]

55. 1.000 means one, rounded to three places. For the cost benefit ratio,

you divide an estimate of the number of legitimate votes that would be suppressed by a proposed "election reform" by an estimate of the number of "illegal" votes to be prevented. When you divide one integer by another, odds are you are going to get a number with a decimal.

Galloglas's EXCELLENT post number 48 (below) goes into the kind of detail required to come up with an estimate for the numerator. Start with estimates of

--the proportion of voting-age people who do not have cars,
--the average time and distance they'd have to travel to the state office where photo IDs would be distributed,
--the average number of hours a registrant would have to wait
--the proportion who would not even try to get an ID because of the time and expense,
--the proportion who'd turn around and go home without an ID after losing patience,
--the proportion who would not have all the required paperwork when they did get to the head of the line, etc.

For the denominator, you'd have to start with an estimate of the number of voter impersonations at the last election, and an estimate of what percentage of that "problem" would be solved by the proposed legislation.

There's more on this in Carter-Baker Commissioner Spencer Overton's dissent (excerpted and linked at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/13/145049/554 ), and in law review articles of his you could google at gwu.edu and elsewhere.

[galloglas]

57. This part should be etched in granite !!

This phrase is sooo accurate.

Even if the "target baseline" can be debated, the fact that the Scales of Justice tip at some point of inequity, is not.

QUOTE:
"How many legitimate voters would be disfranchised for every fraudulent vote prevented? If this would be over 1.000, then such a measure must be barred by law."

An over-the-top-corollary, re: Law Enforcement. "How many innocent should we allow to be executed, in order to assure that the truly guilty do not escape punishmnent?"

[ProgressiveEconomist]

58. Glad you brought up government accountability for "anti-crime" measures

Criminologist Elliott Currie has pointed out that the costs of massive incarceration in tax revenues and effects on prisoners and their familes don't get reflected in the crime measures politicians tout. In principle, the same kind of cost-benefit analysis could be applied to "get-tough anticrime" measures.

In other words, how many thousands of dollars per year in government spending, tax revenues lost, additional fatherless children, poverty for prisoners' familes, etc. would a proposed measure cost, and how many crimes would be deterred?

Lack of this kind of accountability has led states like California and Michigan, once leaders in educational excellence, to now spend a lot more on prison guards than on teachers. Prison guards make a lot more money than teachers, too.

Republicans demand strict accountability for things they don't like--like public education, cash help for the poor, and Medicaid--but NONE for incarceration, warfare, vote suppression, and other things they LOVE.

[greccogirl]

23. I'm sorry but I have no problem with

someone needing a photo ID and proof of citizenship.

[PAdem2]

24. I don't have a problem with it either.

We need a drivers license to cash a check, open a checking account or (for 20 somethings) to get a drink at a bar. How much more important is the ability to vote?! For someone that wants to vote it shouldn't be so hard to get a valid ID. Take your 80 year old mom out for a valid state ID and a nice lunch, for crying out loud! Have her bring a couple utility bills and a social security card and you're good to go.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

26. How many legitimate voters would you disfranchise to prevent one

fraudulent vote? 100? 1000? 10,000?

You would suddenly demand more sacrifice to be able to vote from people who don't own cars and don't have to drive to work that from people who own houses in the suburbs. And how do each of those groups tend to vote?

The fact that there's NO evidence anyone EVER impersonated a voter at the polls indicates that Voter ID is a solution to a problem other than "vote fraud".

See post #21 above and the quote from an election law professor on the real impact of Voter ID. You're drinking the Kool-Aid.

[galloglas]

48. PADEM2, you need to read this !!

This is posted down page, but most of what it addresses concerns you and your aunt. I ask questions at the end of the post. But I'll start with one.

Did you say what you said as a kneejerk reaction? Or did you know nothing about our Missouri Law? If neither, are you just anti-immigrant?

Here's the post:

It establishes a "paper trail" to protect against the largely non-existent threat of losing elections to "Voter Fraud" (the GOP frame). But it does nothing to help create a paper trail for the lastest Diebold Cheat-o-Matics.

Btw, here in Missouri, a law passed in late May requiring State Issued VoterIDs. Our SoS got around to announcing the problem to the voter right before primaries. There are 180,000 voter (most all Democratic) who will be affected.

That in a state that could pick up one of the much needed five Senate seats. Yet, guess what? The only place that these can be gotten are at the State License Bureaus which are, after a sale this past year, are now owned by the family of and inlaws of Gov. Matt Blunt (Congressional House Whip Roy Blunt's son). Think they will stay open overtime to help out the elderly, poor, underserved, etc?

Not on your life. The sale makes it impossible for the SoS to compel the license bureaus to accomodate them.

As for PA-DEM's suggestion that you or I

"Take your 80 year old mom out for a valid state ID and a nice lunch, for crying out loud! Have her bring a couple utility bills and a social security card and you're good to go.

I have news for them. Missouri is requiring photo IDs alright, but a Driver's License, a Passport, or a Military Photo.

How many of our 80 year old aunts are still licensed drivers? Or with valid Passports? Or still active military?

Specifically excluded as IDs (from the MO SoS page) are:

1) Voter Identification Card
2) Utility Bill
3) Bank Statement
4) Paycheck Stub
5) University ID
6) Employer ID

So, if you don't have an ID, here's what the SoS asks you to do (on your lunch with the 80 year old aunt).

(Again, from the MO SoS page.)

"Here’s What You’ll Need To Do:"

1. Show Who You Are.
ONE of these will do:
* Social Security Card
* Medicare Card
* U.S. Passport
If your name on the card you show does not match your current name, you must show proof of name change on:
* Marriage License
* Divorce Decree
* Court Order
* Adoption Papers

2. Show You’re A U.S. Citizen.
ONE of these will do:
* Birth Certificate
* U.S. Passport, valid or expired
* Certificate of Citizenship
* Certificate of Naturalization
* Certificate of Birth Abroad

3. Show Where You Live.
ONE of these will do.
* Recent Utility Bill
* Voter Registration Card
* Government Check
* Pay Check
* Property Tax Receipt
* Rental Contract for Current Address
* Letter from Postmaster in Last 30 Days
* Government Document Showing Name and Address in Last 30 Days


Now, KEYSTONE, if you and auntie get that handled, here's where you go to get those Photo IDs.

Again, from the Sos Official Page

You can get a Missouri driver’s license or non-driver’s license at your local Department of Revenue office (average wait time 2 to three hours, without any extra people showing up for IDs). Non-driver’s licenses may be free of charge. To find the license office nearest you, call 866-443-4165 or go to www.dor.mo.gov/mvd/offloc. (There are an average of 1.3 offices per county, statewide! So, average trip would be about 70 miles, roundtrip)

Also, a Mobile Licensing Unit (there are only 4 of them) will travel the state to visit locations accessible to and frequented by elderly and disabled Missourians who cannot visit a motor vehicle license office. These units will provide an opportunity to sign up for photo IDs that will be mailed out later.(any chance of a slipup there?????) To check the schedule, call 866-443-4165 or go to: http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/voterid.pdf



Now, Keystone, do the math.

These Revenue offices are open year round. They serve an average of 100,000 people per month.

So, in addition to their regular business, you and your auntie, me and mine, and everyone else's, would funnel an extra 180,000 clients a month through their doors (open 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM), tripling their traffic during the four months until the election.

And a GOP Governor's cronies own them, and get no fees for helping you and Auntie. Really think many people are going to get taken care of?

And, BTW, you and your Auntie will be standing in a line for the whole, long time of it. So, is she healthy? Not in a hospital or a nursing home, I hope?

Perhaps you failed to think this through?

Or, possibly, you are also incited to near-riot by the GOP's race-baiting tactics. Talking (so suddenly last spring about all those illegal immigrants who used to pick the fruit that now hangs rotting on trees in our orchards throughout the nation? (Just asking, of course)

Do you really think Missouri's plan is workable???
How much time were you planning on spending with Auntie?
Maybe ought to plan to spend about a week on this???


ONE LAST THING for all of the closest xenophobes out there. A question.

Do you REALLY thing this is designed to keep Juan and Jose from south of the Border from voting??

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. (It stretches from the Alaskan Mainland to bloody NoWhere!)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

56. galloglas, this EXCELLENT post deserves its own thread

The "Voter ID" gambit for Republican vote suppression is GENIUS! No armed stormtroopers with armbands, as in Tom Kean's 1981 2000-vote "victory" in NJ. No ChoicePoint biased purges.

Even on this board, progressives who consider themselves well-informed are drinking the Kool-Aid, posting in all innocence, "What? You don't want voters to have to show ID on Election Day?"

Your superb post makes much clearer that's not what the Republicans are doing. We're talking about voters who already are registered and about special IDs that are completely unnecessary, an abuse of the concept of ID designed to discriminate against city-folk, poor people, and the elderly--groups that tend to vote for Democrats.

I like the way your post includes Voter ID cards as an item in a list of unacceptable documents for qualifying for a Special Republican Vote Suppression Photo ID Card!

[civildisoBDence]

25. I also have no problem with this

If nothing else, it will help establish a paper trail.

Newsprism

[galloglas]

47. No it won't!

It establishes a "paper trail" to protect against the largely non-existent threat of losing elections to "Voter Fraud" (the GOP frame). But it does nothing to help create a paper trail for the lastest Diebold Cheat-o-Matics.

Btw, here in Missouri, a law passed in late May requiring State Issued VoterIDs. Our SoS got around to announcing the problem to the voter right before primaries. There are 180,000 voter (most all Democratic) who will be affected.

That in a state that could pick up one of the much needed five Senate seats. Yet, guess what? The only place that these can be gotten are at the State License Bureaus which are, after a sale this past year, are now owned by the family of and inlaws of Gov. Matt Blunt (Congressional House Whip Roy Blunt's son). Think they will stay open overtime to help out the elderly, poor, underserved, etc?

Not on your life. The sale makes it impossible for the SoS to compel the license bureaus to accomodate them.

As for PA-DEM's suggestion that you or I

"Take your 80 year old mom out for a valid state ID and a nice lunch, for crying out loud! Have her bring a couple utility bills and a social security card and you're good to go.

I have news for them. Missouri is requiring photo IDs alright, but a Driver's License, a Passport, or a Military Photo.

How many of our 80 year old aunts are still licensed drivers? Or with valid Passports? Or still active military?

Specifically excluded as IDs (from the MO SoS page) are:

1) Voter Identification Card
2) Utility Bill
3) Bank Statement
4) Paycheck Stub
5) University ID
6) Employer ID

So, if you don't have an ID, here's what the SoS asks you to do (on your lunch with the 80 year old aunt).

(Again, from the MO SoS page.)

"Here’s What You’ll Need To Do:"

1. Show Who You Are.
ONE of these will do:
* Social Security Card
* Medicare Card
* U.S. Passport
If your name on the card you show does not match your current name, you must show proof of name change on:
* Marriage License
* Divorce Decree
* Court Order
* Adoption Papers

2. Show You’re A U.S. Citizen.
ONE of these will do:
* Birth Certificate
* U.S. Passport, valid or expired
* Certificate of Citizenship
* Certificate of Naturalization
* Certificate of Birth Abroad

3. Show Where You Live.
ONE of these will do.
* Recent Utility Bill
* Voter Registration Card
* Government Check
* Pay Check
* Property Tax Receipt
* Rental Contract for Current Address
* Letter from Postmaster in Last 30 Days
* Government Document Showing Name and Address in Last 30 Days


Now, KEYSTONE, if you and auntie get that handled, here's where you go to get those Photo IDs.

Again, from the Sos Official Page

You can get a Missouri driver’s license or non-driver’s license at your local Department of Revenue office (average wait time 2 to three hours, without any extra people showing up for IDs). Non-driver’s licenses may be free of charge. To find the license office nearest you, call 866-443-4165 or go to www.dor.mo.gov/mvd/offloc. (There are an average of 1.3 offices per county, statewide! So, average trip would be about 70 miles, roundtrip)

Also, a Mobile Licensing Unit (there are only 4 of them) will travel the state to visit locations accessible to and frequented by elderly and disabled Missourians who cannot visit a motor vehicle license office. These units will provide an opportunity to sign up for photo IDs that will be mailed out later.(any chance of a slipup there?????) To check the schedule, call 866-443-4165 or go to: http://www.dor.mo.gov/mvdl/drivers/voterid.pdf



Now, Keystone, do the math.

These Revenue offices are open year round. They serve an average of 100,000 people per month.

So, in addition to their regular business, you and your auntie, me and mine, and everyone else's, would funnel an extra 180,000 clients a month through their doors (open 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM), tripling their traffic during the four months until the election.

And a GOP Governor's cronies own them, and get no fees for helping you and Auntie. Really think many people are going to get taken care of?

And, BTW, you and your Auntie will be standing in a line for the whole, long time of it. So, is she healthy? Not in a hospital or a nursing home, I hope?

Perhaps you failed to think this through?

Or, possibly, you are also incited to near-riot by the GOP's race-baiting tactics. Talking (so suddenly last spring about all those illegal immigrants who used to pick the fruit that now hangs rotting on trees in our orchards throughout the nation? (Just asking, of course)

Do you really think Missouri's plan is workable???
How much time were you planning on spending with Auntie?
Maybe ought to plan to spend about a week on this???


ONE LAST THING for all of the closest xenophobes out there. A question.

Do you REALLY thing this is designed to keep Juan and Jose from south of the Border from voting??

If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. (It stretches from the Alaskan Mainland to bloody NoWhere!)

[galloglas]

35. I have a problel with THIS

Edit: Corrected spelling in title


In Missouri, we have had a law passed (currently under court challege) wherein the requirements are such that voters cannot possibly comply with the law in time to get the proper ID.

Seems kind of unfair to me to pass laws like that.

To not have the SoS notify the voting population until the primaries are upon them, then expect 180,000 old, poor, crippled, blind, and others disadvantaged, to make their way to State Revenue Offices (many of which were sold last spring to relatives, or cronies, of our GOP governor) to get IDs!

And what if these now privately-contracted State Revenue Offices decide that they cannot handle both licenses, renewals, AND voter IDs with the staff they have hired?

Can the state make them hire more employees? Make them stay open 24 hours a day to take care of these most vulnerable of voters? Nooooo! The state can't legally do that. It's not in the contract!

So how would you propose to handle those 180,000 disenfranchised this year?
With the four minivans the SoS put on the road to register voters? That's 45,000 voters, across the state, for each van. Or 500 per day.

Seem reasonable?

Or more reasonable to have the state determine a fair and proper way to handle the IDs, and then make it effective in 2008 or 2010, as we hope the court decision will rule?

It's one thing for the GOP to win an election. It's entirely another to cheat.

[wildeyed]

37. Well a couple of things.

This was from a study funded by the cons:

The study, for which Hearne said he paid the professors a "minimal amount," concludes that fewer than 20,000 registered voters lack a photo ID, and of those, about 6,000 would probably turn out to vote.

And earlier in the article, they said this:

The leader, Leonard Gorman, testified that many Navajo who spend their lives herding sheep in remote areas cannot fulfill the new requirements because they do not drive, nor do they have mailboxes or even the utility bills that are accepted as alternative forms of identification under the new law.

"This is very burdensome to the elders," Gorman told U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver.

The provision had been approved by Republican lawmakers and vetoed by Arizona's Democratic governor before conservative activists included it as part of a broad anti-immigration initiative passed by voters in 2004.

Gorman was describing a highly localized, narrow slice of the electorate — about 60,000 voting-age adults living on the reservation. But Native Americans tend to vote for Democrats.

And in a closely fought state, the votes of a handful of Navajo could be decisive.

In 2004, President Bush won a neighboring state, New Mexico, by just 6,000 ballots, and his 537-vote margin in Florida four years earlier prompted both parties to develop finely tuned get-out-the-vote procedures designed to enlist every voter they could.

So by their own admission, this law will dramatically effect the results in closely fought states. And in the absence of any proof of voter fraud, it is burdensome for both the state and the individual.

[tigereye]

28. you know it's bad when the LOWV is scared to register people

I don't think I have ever been asked to show my Pa voter reg. card, although I have been carrying it around for years...

Why make voting harder, when so few people vote? :banghead:

[Divine Discontent]

29. well, you know the reason, don't you? n/t

[tigereye]

40. well, which one, the obvious one?

or the tinfoil one? ;)

[mkb]

30. Voter Restrictions To Be Expected In Political Battles

     You do not need a pair of cheap sunglasses to filter this
stuff out.  You may want to go out and get some anyway, if you
can see what I mean.  They will be even better used if it's
sunny on election day.
     Gore Vidal I think, writes "left-handed", which
means for those of you catching on, that he dows not disagree
eith those he criticizes.  He said, "nobody who has had
that power for so long is going to give up easily."  Or
something to that effect.  It sounds confusing, because it is,
unless you get the fundamentals of evolution correct.  Reading
what I've written elsewhere can give you clues to this
concept.
     So we should remember that the privileged whom we are
fighting, with few exceptions, will not give up easily, nor
without making life as difficult as possible for those trying
to make things better.
     This is not a reason to stop the struggle, but to realize
that it is long-term and requires patience most of the time. 
We can't predict what will happen, only make sense as best we
can to help ourselves and others working with us succeed. 
It's time for me to take some time off, I think, as it
probably is for others, starting tomorrow, and resime efforts
when we are rested or see fit to.  Hopefully, I will have a
new and better perspective on things after resting.  Very good
news is hoped for, but we must cope with whatever life gives
us.  Good Luck.
     

[illinoisprogressive]

32. What I don't get

is the big deal about this. See, I live in Illinois and I have to show my ID everytime I vote. I've been voting for awhile so, it's not a new thing. We show something. As far as I know it's always been like that.
I don't mean to dump on those who don't have IDs. I think the cost thing is wrong. We can show our utility bill or something to show we live in the district. Maybe, if they want to check to make sure a person lives in the area they can do something like that.

[MGKrebs]

39. At least here in Georgia, the issue is (mostly) the photo ID.

How does a photo ID help anything?
Are there standards for the poll workers to use?
What happens if a poll worker doesn't think you look enough like your picture? Are we just going to determine everybody's right to vote based on the judgement of thousands of poll workers?
Who would want to commit a felony to change one vote by impersonation?

The photo ID is not designed to make voting more accurate, it is a response to too many urban elderly voters voting Dem, and it's another way for incumbants to play on peoples' fears.

Most people just accept the photo ID concept because it makes them "feel" more secure, but in the case of voting, which is a RIGHT - not a commercial transaction- it is an unneccessary complication that solves no problem.

[Joanne98]

41. I got a notice in the mail. I need ID to vote.

If I don't have ID I can use the last four digits of my SS no and then use a PROVISIONAL BALLET! I'm in Ohio. The home of provisional ballet scandals. Oh. I'm also in a district that uses a paperless Diebold voting machine the exact machine BTW that's in the Princeton video. BUT they're not worried about THAT. Only Democrats steal elections by voting more than once. I'm going to kill them.

[meow2u3]

42. I think we should require barcodes on voter registration card

Barcodes, for the uninitiated, are signs of the devil according to some fundie sects. All the better to keep the (ir)Religious Right away from the polls because evangelicals tend to vote Republican :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Dora]

43. Texas State Voter Requirements: Created by the State Office of Elections

My experience trying to vote with no ID...(I was born a U.S. citizen in 1958)

I went to the polls last year in Austin, Texas with my wife, walked in and waited to vote.

It was clear from the beginning that the procedure was unclear to the poll workers, many who were quite elderly, hard of hearing, and quite stern and curt with their words and actions. When I stepped to the register, the poll worker looked at me like I was out of line (NPI) and sternly blurted: "Get out your ID" (the worker just happened to be a OFWM = Old fat white male). I looked a bit surprised, and he said, "Gimme your ID".

I said, "Sir, there is no legal requirement that I provide ID, my name is S**** F******. I live at 2*** W******, in Austin, Texas 787**."

He said, "Listen, you are not going to vote here unless you show me your ID." At that point, I turned to the long line behind me and said, "Are any of you waiting to vote listening what this man is demanding?" "There is no legal or Constitutional requirement that I provide you ID. I am registered to vote, my name is on the register, and I am waiting to sign for my secret number so I can proceed."

At that point, the female worker who was the the leader of the poll worker group, accosted me and said, "Sir if you won't show your ID, you'll have to leave!" I asked her to please step back, at which point she quickly stepped away and conferred with a couple of equally crabby poll workers at another table.

I turned to the "leader" gal and said, "Ma'am, I'm not sure where you folks are getting your information, but as a registered voter, I am not required to show proof of ID." "That is why we register." She replied, "Well, how do we know that you are who you say you are?" I said, "You are just going to have to take my word, or ask my wife!" My response brought a hoot of laughter from all those in line watching this ridiculous exchange.

When pressed by a couple of waiting voters to get the line moving, I decided to take my argument to a higher authority, showed ID, and got my secret number.

I stepped to the voting booth and right as I began to enter votes, the "leader" gal scurried up with a manual of some sort, poking her finger at the page and shrieked, "It says right here in the manual, you have to show ID."

At this point, I was ready to raise a serious stink, but instead turned to "leader" gal and said, "Ma'am, you are showing me a procedure manual for poll workers." "I want you to locate and present to me the law or statute that states I am required to show ID to vote." She hemmed and hawed and then raised the manual again, and re-shrieked, "I said, it says right here that you must show ID to vote."


If this is what the citizenry is up against, state election officials and poll workers who don't know the state voting laws, and then agency wonks who create procedure manuals that imply proof of ID is required, we are in for an meltdown of the complete voting process.

The policies created in the Texas State Elections Office are being presented as law or laws to all voters, which is a complete lie!

(I am in conflict to include this bit of information, but the head of state elections in Texas is a Republican)



"We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!"

[galloglas]

51. HoooooooRay!!!!!

TV News just showed that the Courts have overthrown the Missouri ID Law!!!!:toast:



:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[wildeyed]

52. Wow!

:toast:

Is there a link yet?

[galloglas]

54. Got one now!

Edit: add text

KELLY WIESE
Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - A state judge struck down Missouri's new voter
identification law Thursday as an unconstitutional infringement on the
right to vote.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan was considering two
combined lawsuits claiming the requirement that people show a federal
or Missouri-issued photo ID at the polls starting in November was an
unconstitutional burden on voters.

Callahan's ruling bars the photo ID requirement from being enforced.
He said the requirement is a particular burden to women and the poor.
That's because a separate Missouri law requires those getting or
renewing a driver's license to show they are lawfully in the country,
generally with a birth certificate or passport.

Those whose name has changed, such as some married women, also must
provide documents showing those changes. While the ID to vote would be
free, underlying paperwork has a cost, and the judge said that's
unacceptable.


More at--

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/09/11/daily55.html?from_rss=1