Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

all the voter ID laws

You're the only one wanting to make this about all voter ID laws.

I'm certain that there is a way to verify the identity of voters without disenfranchising a bunch of people.

But until someone proposes that solution... we have to discuss the laws that are actually being enacted.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

test reply (please disregard)

edit: weird. my reply to Firefly did not display until I put in a post to appear after it.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

But until someone proposes that solution... we have to discuss the laws that are actually being enacted.

I am discussing those laws, which is why I brought up the Indiana law which the U.S. Supreme Court did not feel disenfranchised voters.
I have been addressing the actual laws, including the Pennsylvania law. I also think it is possible to discuss such laws from a legal standpoint without the partisan arguments from either side.

Quote:

I'm certain that there is a way to verify the identity of voters without disenfranchising a bunch of people.

The issue of whether any voters have been disenfranchised by these laws has yet to be demonstrated--it is not a given. All I'm hearing, certainly in this thread, is speculation that that might occur. Has disenfranchisement actually been established or demonstrated anywhere--where these laws have been in effect?

Quote:

I'm certain that there is a way to verify the identity of voters...

They can do that by having only one uniform form of identity acceptable for all voters--and have that one form of identity provided free to all registered voters .

The state can just issue free photo ID cards, for voting purposes, to every registered voter in the state, if that's what the voters want, and they are willing to foot the bill for or just do what they are doing in Virginia, and issue a non photo voter ID to all currently registered voters and accept that as proof of identity.

If the Republicans really want these forms of ID for voting purposes, I think the state should pay for them, and the lawmakers should have the burden of justifying that cost, particularly at a time of budgetary crises.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

http://able2know.org/topic/194913-12#post-5064059

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The issue of whether any voters have been disenfranchised by these laws has yet to be demonstrated--it is not a given. All I'm hearing, certainly in this thread, is speculation that that might occur. Has disenfranchisement actually been established or demonstrated anywhere--where these laws have been in effect?

You have got to be kidding me.

OK, if we're going to go this route: I'll I'm hearing is speculation that in-person voter fraud might occur. Has in-person voting fraud actually been established or demonstrated?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

I'll add this: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pennsylvania_voter_id_disenfranchised.php

Quote:

In fact, over 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania — representing 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters — do not have photo identification cards from the state Transportation Department, based on a comparison between voter registration rolls and the Transportation Department database.

The problem is most acutely shown in Philadelphia, with 186,830 registered voters who do not have ID cards in the Transportation database, 18 percent of the city’s total registration.

Firefly, are you claiming that this law will not prevent a single voter from voting? Really?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

So close to 20 percent of otherwise eligible voters in Philadelphia will probably be unable to vote in the next presidential election, unless this law is overturned. I wonder what neighborhoods these voters mostly represent?

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

I am discussing those laws, which is why I brought up the Indiana law which the U.S. Supreme Court did not feel disenfranchised voters.

Firefly, you repeatedly refer to The Supreme Court decision and laws which have been enacted. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's logical or fair. There are still plenty of laws on the books that don't make sense and aren't fair. So these arguments are spurious. Just because 9 people decided the voters wouldn't be disenfranchised doesn't make it so.

You are actually not listening to them... their main point, with which I agree, is that voter ID is unnecessary. And just because some politicians decided it is necessary, doesn't mean it's right. (Why are you holding up politicians as a group who are worthy and intelligent, anyway?) Politicians frequently make a stupid decisions - we know some who can't even string words together to make a sentence, don't we? - so that's another spurious argument. So what if it's all nice and legal? Still doesn't mean it's RIGHT.

Re: voter ID - why can't someone bring in their utility bill, bank statement, library card, other form of identification with name and address on it and vote? We don't use any ID here in Canada to vote at any level.

The other point they're making is that there is no widespread evidence of voter fraud. And you just keep quoting articles and such, which are meaningless because there's no hard data. Someone or two got arrested, but that's not evidence of widespread voter fraud.

So, PA wants to institute a Photo Voter ID card, which many people apparently can't afford or gain access to (thereby being disenfranchised) in order to prevent something which isn't even proved.

2 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

So close to 20 percent of otherwise eligible voters in Philadelphia will probably be unable to vote in the next presidential election, unless this law is overturned. I wonder what neighborhoods these voters mostly represent?

That's not exactly what the data says. The data says close to 20% do not have a valid state-issued ID. Some people have or will have other valid forms of ID (e.g., a passport). Some people will get a state-issued ID before the election.

But I don't think all of them will. Some non-zero number of people will be prevented from voting, in order to prevent in-person voter fraud for which there is no evidence.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Again, I wonder if there are stats to show which neighborhoods will be most affected.

0 Replies

@Mame,

Firefly is a very rules-based person, IMO.

But unlike other cases where she can actually demonstrate that the law is there for a reason (drunk driving, rape, etc.), here she's left defending a worse-than-useless law.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Sorry but our government do not allow special groups to lose their civil rights even at the will of the majority and is that the government we are starting to get it is damn time to break out the guns.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

break out the guns and what, billy?

who are you gonna shoot first...?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

What Firefly seems not to understand the greater the percents of the population you disfranchised the less the government had any claims on moral legality.

Others then sheer force any government who go out of it way to shut out populations from having a say in that government have no claims on ruling over the people.

Frankly I am surprise that the blocking of thirty percents plus of all black males in the state of Florida had not resulted in more civil unrest and riots then had happen to date.

If someone is block from being a stakeholder in society why the hell should he or she have any motivation to obey the laws of the society except for whatever force the society can bring to bear?

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Quote:

who are you gonna shoot first...?

Let see the answer to that would be the same as it was in 1776.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

0 Replies

@Mame,

Quote:

Firefly, you repeatedly refer to The Supreme Court decision and laws which have been enacted. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's logical or fair.

Except that the Supreme Court decision regarding Indiana also found the reason for enacting the voter ID law to be logical and valid. They ruled that a state has a valid reason to enact laws which seek to improve the integrity of the voting process.

Quote:

You are actually not listening to them... their main point, with which I agree, is that voter ID is unnecessary.

I'm listening, I'm definitely listening, but I don't agree with them. I do think voter ID is very useful and desirable. I also do not find their thinking regarding possible disenfranchisement persuasive--and neither did the Supreme Court.

Quote:

And just because some politicians decided it is necessary, doesn't mean it's right. (Why are you holding up politicians as a group who are worthy and intelligent, anyway?)

"Some politicians" turn out to be the duly elected Representatives in 30 state legislatures who voted to have some sort of voter ID required at the polls--a move which is supported by the opinion of most Americans polled on the issue. Only 20 states now require no voter ID at the polls.

So, an awful lot of people in the real world of the U.S. do feel these laws are necessary, and they want them, and they are are all not Republicans by a long-shot. And a handful of posters at A2K are choosing to ignore all of those people. Some of what's going on on both sides of the voter ID debate is clearly partisan maneuvering, but not all of it is.

We've changed our voting machines to try to improve our voting system, and requiring some sort of uniform voter ID to establish identity at the polls can also be seen as an improvement in the system. You yourself have pointed out that some form of valid identification is necessary in many areas of daily life--like when writing a check, or opening a bank account, etc.--and establishing identity when voting is at least as important as establishing identity when engaging in those actions.

Quote:

The other point they're making is that there is no widespread evidence of voter fraud. And you just keep quoting articles and such, which are meaningless because there's no hard data. Someone or two got arrested, but that's not evidence of widespread voter fraud.

No one has claimed there is widespread voter fraud at the polls, anymore than anyone has claimed there is no voter fraud--both of those extreme positions would be inaccurate. The idea, and the goal, with any of these voter ID laws is to prevent any voter identity fraud at the polls.

Quote:

Re: voter ID - why can't someone bring in their utility bill, bank statement, library card, other form of identification with name and address on it and vote?

Because I wouldn't favor a hodge podge of dubious documents thrust at polls inspectors on election day. Personally, I think there should be only one form of voter ID, and all registered voters should be supplied with that single form of voter ID, free of charge, by the state. Once you are duly registered to vote, you should receive that voter ID with no further documentation or hassle required. That sort of voter ID would not even raise a suspicion of disenfranchising anyone, and it would not, in fact, disenfranchise anyone.

Quote:

So, PA wants to institute a Photo Voter ID card, which many people apparently can't afford or gain access to

No, what you and others here are ignoring, is the fact that Pennsylvania will also make available a new voter ID card, free of charge, and without a birth certificate requirement, to those who could not otherwise obtain other acceptable ID for purposes of voting.

I see nothing wrong with the general idea of requiring voter proof of identity at the polls--I think it's a good idea to help eliminate any possible voter fraud. But, I see a lot wrong with the state shifting any cost and inconvenience of obtaining these IDs to the individual voters--including middle-class and upper-class voters and non-minority voters. As I just mentioned earlier in this post, I think the state should supply one uniform form of voter ID free of charge to all registered voters. That would help to eliminate any fraud and it wouldn't disadvantage or disenfranchise anyone.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

...Personally, I think there should be only one form of voter ID, and all registered voters should be supplied with that single form of voter ID, free of charge, by the state. Once you are duly registered to vote, you should receive that voter ID with no further documentation or hassle required. That sort of voter ID would not even raise a suspicion of disenfranchising anyone, and it would not, in fact, disenfranchise anyone.

... the fact that Pennsylvania will make available a new voter ID card, free of charge, and without a birth certificate requirement, to those who could not otherwise obtain other acceptable ID for purposes of voting.

I see nothing wrong with the general idea of requiring voter proof of identity at the polls--I think it's a good idea to help eliminate any possible voter fraud. But, I see a lot wrong with the state shifting any cost and inconvenience of obtaining these IDs to the voters--including middle-class and upper-class voters and non-minority voters. As I just mentioned earlier in this post, I think the state should supply one uniform form of voter ID free of charge to all registered voters. That would help to eliminate any fraud and it wouldn't disadvantage or disenfranchise anyone.

Frankly, I am surprised at every election that they don't ask for ID here. Registered voters are sent a voting card which we can or not take with us to the voting booth. Not that I know anyone that would vote in my place, but I would prefer if there were ID. For all they know, I could be my mother. The rolls are always out of date. They should spend the year or so before the election updating them.

If the State provides a free Photo ID card without a birth certificate, that's a decent compromise.

DD and Cyclo: if you think people will have a hard time obtaining the free Photo ID, how do you think they'll get to the voting station?

1 Reply

@Mame,

But that's not the issue; it's about a government photo ID card that is being required to reduce or eliminate fraud where there are none.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Regardless... if it becomes a law, that's it. You have to do it. Like a driver's licence. I'm sure when they were introduced people said, "Why should I get a license? I'm a good driver."

You can debate it all up-down and sideways but if it's a law, it's a law and you can't get around it, so... the thing to do is make it palatable and easy to access.

There are lots of laws on the books, rules and policies in organizations, that are formulated for a very few number of transgressors.

For example, wasn't your Homeland Security created after 9/11? Not to mention all the new security arrangements?

That's just the way it is. A few bad apples ruin it for the rest of us. Even if there isn't ANY voter fraud, if the government makes Photo ID free and accessible, what's the problem?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

And that's not the only issue that was raised here... the argument was people were being disenfranchised because they didn't have a birth certificate, couldn't afford the ID, and couldn't get out to obtain it.

1 Reply

Pa PASSES VOTER "PHOTO- ID" LAW

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know