You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
liberal cries about needing IDs to vote
2005-09-27
As Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthews wrote in a landmark case in 1886, the right to vote is fundamental because it is "preservative of all rights." Requiring a photo ID to vote, as the Carter-Baker commission recommends, would have a chilling effect on voter participation. It would block some Americans from the political process.
Yes, all the dead ones that keep voting.
The Carter-Baker recommendations are so restrictive that even a valid U.S. passport or photo ID issued by the U.S. military isn't good enough. Voters must have a driver's license that meets the requirements of the controversial Real ID Act, which set strict standards for obtaining state-issued licenses.
Good
Such a requirement would disproportionately impact poor people, the disabled, the elderly and people of color, who are all statistically less likely to have driver's licenses. The commission recommended an alternative photo ID be available for non-drivers, but no infrastructure is in place to make those available, particularly for the elderly. In addition, there was no cost assessment in the report.
Bullshit. My state of Colorado has ID cards issued by the state at drivers licenses stations. They are just as good ID and you don't need to take a driver's test. You can pick one up at the kiosk at most malls for $15.
According to a 2001 election-reform report, 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans don't have driver's licenses, and requiring them would be a "burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban."
Instead of poorer and country?
This burden will increase as states are forced to cover the costs of the Real ID Act, estimated at up to $13 billion, in part by increasing the price of a new license.
Bullshit again. Most states have an ID program already and charge to help cover costs.
By adopting the restrictive standards of the Real ID Act, the Carter-Baker proposal also takes us one step closer to a national ID. National guidelines for standardized IDs, and a proposed database for states to share voter-identification information, are the beginning of a "show us your papers" society.
While a national ID makes me nervous, there is an upside to some of it. Watch the sippery slope argument lady. Didn't you ever take a logic class?
This proposal is nothing new. The Carter-Ford commission rejected a less restrictive photo ID proposal in 2001. If this commission had used a more democratic process, such as giving the public the opportunity to comment, members may have come to a similar conclusion this year as well.
A more democratic process for a committee. That is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. The democratic process comes when it is presented to congress, you buttnugget!
If we are truly committed to improving the U.S. electoral system, there are much bigger — and more common — voting problems to address, such as inaccurate voter registration rolls, malfunctioning voting machines Evil Republicans make them!
and untrained poll workers. Lawmakers should address isolated incidences of Democrat voter fraud, but not at the expense of more widespread disparities in voter access.
You need an ID to rent a movie, but not to vote. If someone can't get their ass to the mall to get an ID, sorry, you ain't gonna make it to the voting booth so I am not that sympothetic. What kind of idiot writes this shit anyway?
Caroline Fredrickson is director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Office.

Ah, ACLU. Figures. Remember, they can't cheat if it ain't close!
Posted by:mmurray821

#12  Requiring a photo ID to vote, as the Carter-Baker commission recommends, would have a chilling effect on voter participation.

Damn right! Have you seen some of the pictures of the moonbats at last weekends anti-war rallys. If you looked like that would you want to carry around a picture ID. Me neither ...
Posted by: DMFD   2005-09-27 22:32  

#11  ask Mucky?
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-27 19:42  

#10  Since you are required to learn English to become a citizen, you should have no problem voting in English.

I thought the Clinton administration did away with the English requirement. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: Hupolump Ebbavilet3398   2005-09-27 19:21  

#9  State ID's should be fine, my paranoid friend, if the states all require valid proof of citizenship and uniform fairly high standards (biometrics or other specializied graphics/info).... The day of worrying about a "nat'l ID" was when SSN's became ID numbers - i.e. long ago. Get over it. Any complaints about proof of ID when voting play into a decrepit fraudulent parties' attempt to cheat their way into power, right Hillary?
Posted by: Frank G   2005-09-27 18:49  

#8  How's come nobody's ever disenfranchized on the 1st and the 15th. Nobody ever has a problem with ID then. And last time I checked 40's weren't delivered door to door.
Posted by: macofromoc   2005-09-27 18:29  

#7  Moose, we have a national ID. The drivers license. When you get your next one, you have to give your SSN. It is then "checked" against a national data base to verify that it is a valid SSN issued to the same name as the DL. I am sure that whatever non-DL state ID is issued for voting will also require SSN submission for verification and validation against the national SSN database. SSN is on all bank records. That is one way Able Danger and other data minimg activities can tie things together.

Don't do something you don't want NSA to know about with a credit card, cell phone, or long distance phone. It will be interesting to see how soon you need to have SSN for e-mail/domain name.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-09-27 18:23  

#6  American friends be rest in peace, it is a problem easily solved by friends of your country.
Posted by: abu Wit a Loop   2005-09-27 18:03  

#5  Requiring a photo ID to vote, as the Carter-Baker commission recommends, would have a chilling effect on voter participation.

Using that line of reasoning, doesn't registering to vote have a chilling effect on participation?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-09-27 17:43  

#4  A valid State ID is no problem. The problem is that these boogers always want a valid *national* ID.

And for those of you who shrug that off, you need lessons on how dictators operate. I'm not talking about the 3am knock on the door, I'm talking about government by pinch-faced nanny. Death by duck bites. The never-ending pester.

Believe me, there is no limit to how petty and intrusive the vast amount of people out there who *want* to get into your life, and your face, can get. 20 years ago there was no thought to passing any laws against "identity theft", but now it's looked at as a crime as common as burglary.

A national ID is a license for *institutionalized* identity abuse, on top of illegal theft.

Very soon, you would be denied goods and services based on the same rule that banks use when giving loans: "You can't have a loan unless you don't need it."

This applies to health insurance (Already they had to pass the HIPPO act, so that you can't be denied unless you are not careful and miss having coverage for six months. Then you are screwed.)

But it applies to so many things. Big, thick, corporate dossiers on everybody. Wee.

Unless, of course, you want to try and live without having an ID card. I've seen (white) Americans who do that, too. It ain't easy. You can't rent, you can't get a legal job, you can't do a lot of the things that people have to do to survive, without help from somebody who has an ID card. Their frustration is agonizing. And if you don't have an ID, you can't get an ID without jumping through some difficult hoops.

Ask anyone from what was the Warsaw Pact about having "papers" just to live their lives. They will tell you that 98% of every demand for papers is for utterly trivial, stupid, and time wasting paperwork and dossier compilation. And the demand is constant. Everybody wants information about you, in an almost obsessive, obnoxious and uncalled for way, and you have no choice but to give it or be hassled even further.

It's just not bloody worth it.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-09-27 17:28  

#3  Personally I feel that if they are too damn lazy to get off their asses and get valid ID (and just about every state has a non-Drivers License ID card) then they dont deserve to vote.

I also feel that voters should be required to re-register every 4-8 years. And no mail-in voting unless you are disabled or can't get to a polling place. If you are too lazy to walk a few blocks then you shouldn't vote.

Washington state now requires ID. Of course anything is accepted - utilty bills, etc... which is the democrats loophole to allow illegals, felons, the dead, and imaginary friends to vote.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-09-27 16:54  

#2  I am curious on how the vote would be if everyone were required to show a valid ID in order to vote. I suspect that a lot of races would go the other way in what was thought Democratic districts. Notice only the Dems are whining about having to show an ID? That is because they will lose even more elections if this became law. I would also add that ballots be printed in English only. Since you are required to learn English to become a citizen, you should have no problem voting in English. Of course certain counties in Florida will have to have assisted voting for the criminally dumb. I would also like to see thumbprint recognition software at your assigned polling place. The technology isn’t expensive anymore and would drastically curtail double dem voting. I would really like to have a camera rolling when one of those voting vans show up and they see the thumb print security. The Dems organizer would break his finger getting the ACLU on speed dial.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-09-27 16:45  

#1  It seems reasonable to me that anyone that wants to vote should be able to obtain or already posseses some form of photo ID since this covers state issued driver licenses and non-license ID's; federal passports, etc. because you need such ID's to function (drive vehicles, cash checks, buy alcohol / cigarettes, filling out W-4's when you apply for employment, etc.), and that an overwhelming majority of voters already possess such forms of ID. Putting it mildly, Ms. ACLU doesn't make a compelling argument that the right to vote should be held to a lower standard.
Posted by: Raj   2005-09-27 16:01  

00:00