House Passes Bill to Require ID to Vote

[zippyjuan]

I am amazed when I am NOT asked to show ID when I go to vote. I could register a fake name in every precint and go vote all over the place. I have no problem with this concept. And I don't buy the claim that it will hurt Democrats.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?...60920176448432

But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly - groups that tend to vote Democratic - who might have trouble producing a photo identification.

"This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax," said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters."

The border fence issue seems to be a political ploy since they want to approve the building of a 700 mile long fence- but do not want to appropriate any money to spend on actually building it. An election year promise that fades after the votes are counted I think.

[cheapie]

woohoo! an idea that should have been implemented LONNGGGGG ago!

[ryan_self]

I find it a little scary that we need a House bill to implement this...I mean, how could anyone oppose this unless you want illegals voting?

[Mommypooh]

I think this is completely resonable. I never realized you didn't have to show an ID. but I guess I only voted once and it was a while ago, so I think this is a good thing it will make it easier to know if the person voting is supposed to be voting.

[ShawnLee]

Well, this law is already implemented in a lot states. In California's case, it's specifically against the law for a precinct worker to ask for ID. When I was working elections, we went so far as to ask people to put away their ID's because some were getting them ready right as the local Democrats were poll-watching.

I don't buy the counter-arguments either, and support this law.

[Butch]

I think this is absolutely ****ing ridiculous.

Voting is a RIGHT - no ifs, ands or buts. It is among the most basic tenets of our way of government. This restriction makes it more likely that people on the fringes of society will be even further disenfranchised.

Since I'm not going to be able to say it any better than the NY Times editorial board . . . I'll just let them speak . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/op...21thu1.html?hp

Keep Away the Vote
One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driver’s license or non-driver’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.

Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law.

Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan.

America has a proud tradition of opening up the franchise to new groups, notably women and blacks, who were once denied it. It is disgraceful that, for partisan political reasons, some people are trying to reverse the tide, and standing in the way of people who have every right to vote.

[Airencracken]

I don't see the problem with requiring ID to vote unless the ID gets out of hand. If the ID starts meaning "the barcode on your arm" then yeah, that's bad, but my driver's license or my passport? Sure why not?

[Butch]

I don't see the problem with requiring ID to vote unless the ID gets out of hand. If the ID starts meaning "the barcode on your arm" then yeah, that's bad, but my driver's license or my passport? Sure why not?

Problem is, a lot of people don't have either of those and a lot won't get them just to vote. Guess who is going to be most likely not to get them if they don't already have them?

It's basically a poll tax. While you're not asked to pay money, you are expected to take the time and effort to jump through hoops . . . and remember the old adage, "time is money"

[xsiled2]

We already show ID here in Arizona, it was a great idea and not a hassle in anyway. I spend a whole 2:15 in the building instead of the 2:00 i used to, woopty doo.

[Airencracken]

Problem is, a lot of people don't have either of those and a lot won't get them just to vote. Guess who is going to be most likely not to get them if they don't already have them?

It's basically a poll tax. While you're not asked to pay money, you are expected to take the time and effort to jump through hoops . . . and remember the old adage, "time is money"

I can see that argument, but there is the counter argument, which party is more likely to commite vote fraud? And will this help abate that?

[Butch]

The problem isn't showing ID of some sort - every citizen should/does have some document indicating they are citizens (birth certificate, SS card, passport). . . They need to prove citizenship when they register to vote and need to use these documents . . . but they are not necessarily photo IDs. For those who do not have a government-issued photo ID, they would have to get an ID pretty much solely for the purpose of voting.

I can see that argument, but there is the counter argument, which party is more likely to commite vote fraud? And will this help abate that?

Problem is, the most prevalent voter fraud won't be stopped by this. There isn't much evidence at all that there is widespread voter fraud caused by people pretending they are someone else at the polling station.

Instead, purging registration databases to prevent people from voting (for instance) is a much greater issue.

[Airencracken]

The problem isn't showing ID of some sort - every citizen should/does have some document indicating they are citizens (birth certificate, SS card, passport). . . They need to prove citizenship when they register to vote and need to use these documents

Not in California, at least as far as my experience goes.

Problem is, the most prevalent voter fraud won't be stopped by this. There isn't much evidence at all that there is widespread voter fraud caused by people pretending they are someone else at the polling station.

Instead, purging registration databases to prevent people from voting (for instance) is a much greater issue.

I think that and the Diebold hacks are probably the most worrisome of voter fraud.

[Butch]

Not in California, at least as far as my experience goes.

You're right . . . you don't have to show the actual docs . . . but you do have to provide information that should be traceable to proof of citizenship . . .

https://ovr.ss.ca.gov/votereg/OnlineVoterReg

Have to provide your CA driver's ID or CA ID or last four SSN digits.

And agreed that Diebold stuff is far worse, as well . . . but so far it hasn't been shown to have actually impacted anything . . . just that it COULD (and likely will . . . ugh)

[cadetevon]

I'm all for this. No harm in proving you are who you are.

[ryan_self]

I think this is absolutely ****ing ridiculous.
Voting is a RIGHT - no ifs, ands or buts. It is among the most basic tenets of our way of government. This restriction makes it more likely that people on the fringes of society will be even further disenfranchised.

Voting is every citizen's right. Do not forget the difference.

[ryan_self]

Problem is, a lot of people don't have either of those and a lot won't get them just to vote. Guess who is going to be most likely not to get them if they don't already have them?

It's basically a poll tax. While you're not asked to pay money, you are expected to take the time and effort to jump through hoops . . . and remember the old adage, "time is money"

In most states, it is a crime to be out in public and unable to produce identification upon police demand. If someone owns no form of photo ID, not even a state ID card, then technically, they are always at risk to be found guilty of a crime. Every responsible citizen should have some form of ID...do not condescend to the horrible spectors of the "poll tax" past to compare these two situations.

[ShawnLee]

Butch, while I hear your concerns, I disagree. I could be wrong on specifics, but every bill I've seen till now on this bent over backward to approve nearly ANY sort of ID. Not to prove citizenship even, just to prove identity. There was even talk of subsidizing a federally-funded voter's ID that wouldn't cost anyone anything. Again, I could be wrong, but these are the assumptions I was working under.

[Butch]

Unfortunately, it IS photo ID . . . not just any ID

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washi...migration.html

September 20, 2006
House Acts to Require Voters to Prove Citizenship
By REUTERS
Filed at 4:49 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a move to crack down against illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to require Americans to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in federal elections.

Democratic opponents said the bill would discourage eligible voters. But it passed with overwhelming support of Republicans who argued that it would prevent fraud and stop illegal immigrants from casting ballots in U.S. elections.

``Those who are in this country illegally want the same rights as United States citizens without obeying the laws of our land,'' Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican, said during the House debate. ``We should not let these criminals defraud our election system by allowing them to vote.''

The legislation passed on a largely party-line vote of 228-196 and although immigration issues are a hot topic in this year's congressional elections, it has little chance of winning Senate agreement before the November 7 vote.

The bill would require voters to present a photo identification to vote in federal elections in 2008. By 2010 the photo identification would also have to show the voter is a U.S. citizen.

Democrats said the bill's requirements would hurt the poor, the elderly and others unable to easily obtain the documents required. They argued that obtaining required documents can be expensive and that there was no evidence to suggest voter fraud is widespread.

``It's an imaginary problem,'' Rep. Charles Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat, told reporters. ``This is calculated to disenfranchise a certain segment of our society and those are minorities. The collateral damage will be seniors, the homebound, victims of disaster and members of the armed services.''

But Republicans argued that requiring proof of citizenship and a photo identification would not impose a great burden on voters because identification is routinely required for other purposes.

If it were enacted it would likely face legal challenges. Judges in Missouri and Georgia recently ruled unconstitutional state laws requiring voter photo identification. Several other states do require photo or other forms of identification.

BORDER SECURITY

It is one of a number of immigration-related measures House Republicans planned to bring to a vote before the November 7 congressional elections. Last week the House authorized the construction of a 700 mile fence along parts of the 2,000 mile border with Mexico. The Senate was poised to take up the measure later this week after it cleared a procedural hurdle.

Democrats have accused majority Republicans of pushing the border security measures weeks before the election for political reasons after they failed to agree on a comprehensive immigration overhaul sought by President George W. Bush. Bush wants legislation that would create a guest worker program and that would have allowed millions of illegal immigrants a chance to legalize their status.

Critics said the voter identification bill passed by the House on Wednesday also was part of election politics.

John Trasvina of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund accused Republicans of bringing the measure up so they could use it in campaign ads against political foes.

``It would certainly make a nice 30 second ad. Somebody's opponent saying, 'He voted against a bill that requires only U.S. citizens to vote,''' said Trasvina.

Chellie Pingree of Common Cause also denounced the bill, saying, ``It's a political opportunity for them to show that they are tough on fraud. It is an anti-immigration issue.''

``I think it stirs up voter fears at the polls,'' Pingree said.

[cadetevon]

The bill would require voters to present a photo identification to vote in federal elections in 2008. By 2010 the photo identification would also have to show the voter is a U.S. citizen.

So, ok, everyone has more than a year to get proper ID.

This seems fair to me.

[ryan_self]

Beginning in 2008, voters who arrive at polling stations without the required ID, will be given a provisional ballot and 48 hours to present a qualifying ID, and people voting by mail must include a photocopy of photo ID. States are also required to set up programs to distribute the IDs and must provide them at no cost to indigent voters. The cost for the program will be reimbursed by the federal government.

Is this really such an inordinate request?

[MrGreg]

Does a driver's license prove you are a citizen?

[Butch]

Does a driver's license prove you are a citizen?

Nope. You can have a driver's license without being a citizen.

[MrGreg]

So by 2010 everyone needs either a new "citizen ID" card or an updated drivers license that proves citizenship. Now were're not just talking about people without ID having to get one, this implies EVERYONE needs to get a new ID. That seems like (1) overkill and (2) a national ID card.

[InfiniteNothing]

Bah, just another way to get you "in the system" [/tinfoil hat]

[ryan_self]

Nope. You can have a driver's license without being a citizen.

Which is also nonsense, but another topic for another day.

[Airencracken]

I hadn't read about the idea for a national ID system, I dislike that. I do think however that it is reasonable to make someone prove they are a citizen when they go to vote, after all, it is a citizen's right.

[LPMiller]

if the id's are free to anyone, then I guess I don't have a real problem with this.

[zippyjuan]

I can see proving citizenship to register to vote- and then producing some sort of ID - any ID- at the time of voting to show you are who you say you are. I did not realize that this was part of the National ID plan. The National ID Card plan has grown out of paranoia and xenophobia so that people can show that they are "one of us" and not "one of them" with "one of them" meaning a foreigner, legally or illegally, or a terrorist. A National ID card will do nothing to stop any terrorist. Once they are issued, counterfits will be produced, limiting any alleged benefit of issuing them anyways. Nothing is foolproof.

[Jcranmer]

I really see no issue with this. I can't belive that I am *never* asked for ID to vote.

[blueindian]

i have no problem with this concept, but the implementation has a few faults. particularly, it needs more time before the "citizenship proof" requirement comes into effect. my current license does not expire unitl after 2010, i'm sure others are in the same situation. i shouldn't have to go get another just to vote...that requirement should be a number of years equal to the maximum about of time a license stays valid in all of the states.