Texas voter law

[Walt'sBeerWench]

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-test-196...014642325.html

I don't understand why they aren't required to show a picture ID. Um....I thought this was a federal requirement. Guess I was wrong. IMHO it should be a federal law. Everyone should have a state/federal picture ID if they are 18 or older. How else would you stop voter fraud? Good grief. Again IMHO, it has nothing to do with prejudice or racisim. It has to do with making sure of who you are and that you only get to vote once. I seriously don't get the controversy. Pass it and move on people.

[moonlight]

Originally Posted by Walt'sBeerWench

Everyone should have a state/federal picture ID if they are 18 or older.

Why? Last I checked, this was not the Soviet Union and we are free to move around and do all sorts of stuff without ID. In fact, I can only think of a few situations where you are required to have ID - on base (dependent ID), coming into the US (US passport), or buying restricted material, alcohol and such (whatever ID you choose that proves age). However, none of those is something anyone is required to do.

I personally don't carry any ID unless I am planning on doing one of the above because I don't have to.

</libertarian rant>

On a more on topic note, I vote in Texas by absentee ballot each election. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote absentee as allowed by the state and the MSRRA because I can't show photo ID before voting?

[MarisaAnne]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...of-voter-fraud

The 'Myth' of Voter Fraud
A democracy hinges on fair elections, which is why voter fraud could pose a serious threat to the American political system. But election law expert Tova Wang says instances of polling place fraud are extremely rare. Wang, a fellow at progressive think tanks Demos and the Century Foundation, is the author of a forthcoming book called The Politics of Voter Suppression: Defending and Expanding Americans' Right to Vote. She recently spoke with U.S. News about election fraud and why she thinks voter ID laws are discriminatory. Excerpts:
Is there a problem of voter fraud?
If you're asking whether there's fraud in the electoral system, yes, there is some, not a lot. If you're asking me if there is fraud at the polling place, then I would say no, we do not have a serious problem with fraud in this country.
[Robert Schlesinger: The Real Voter Fraud Scandal]
What about widely publicized stories of registration fraud?
Those cases are always very easily caught, very frequently by the very organization that's overseeing the work. And there's absolutely zero evidence that anyone who has put any false information on a voter registration form has actually voted using that information. Problems with voter registration [are] different than fraud at the polls that ends up impacting the election.
Are there reliable statistics on voter fraud?
What we can go by is the number of times that people have been prosecuted successfully for such crimes. And the number is ridiculously low. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than discovering an incident of polling place fraud.
[Read more Q&As in U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad.]
Then why is there a public perception that there's a problem?
I think there are a lot of political leaders who have perpetuated this myth for partisan purposes, and when you look at it superficially it's a believable argument. But they tend to conflate the different types of fraud that could occur in the election system and sort of mix together voter registration fraud, and voter absentee fraud, and other types of issues, and stir it all up in a pot, and come up with voter identification requirements that would do nothing to address the relatively minor problems that we have in the system.
What's going on with voter ID requirements?
We have seen an incredible wave of legislation since the 2010 elections, when Republicans took over a number of state legislatures. A number of states have passed ID legislation in the past year and a half or so. And now I think you're starting to see a backlash, particularly in the courts, where judges are looking at the evidence and saying, this is discriminatory, this is voter suppression, and there's no need for it.
[Susan Milligan: What James O'Keefe Gets Wrong About Voter Fraud]
What's wrong with requiring photo identification from voters?
There are many thousands of Americans who have the same rights as you and I who do not have the kind of identification that politicians want to require. Something between 10-11 percent of Americans.
Who falls into this category?
Disproportionately certain groups, particularly African-Americans, Latinos, young people, and people with disabilities—the types of groups that tend to vote, frankly, Democratic. Because there's not a big problem of fraud at the polls that this would address, the only conclusion that you could come to is that they're trying to purposefully keep out of the system people they don't want voting.
How will this affect November's election?
A number of the laws are in litigation right now through the Department of Justice and also private lawsuits. In the meantime, organizations across states where they have these new ID laws are working with individual voters, one on one, trying to mitigate the damaging impact these ID laws will inevitably have in November.

• See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.
• Washington Whispers: ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law
• Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.

[moonlight]

Honestly, I don't think anyone's trying to disenfranchise the kinds of voters referenced above. I think Republicans just love making new laws that restrict people's rights - anyone's rights. Especially basic rights like voting.

[MarineHusband]

Having put in my time in a number of elections as a poll worker, the whole "voter fraud" issue is one that's always been very annoying to me. When Ohio went for Bush in 2004, a bunch of liberals screamed "fraud!" When it went for Obama in 2008, a bunch of conservatives screamed the same thing.

Obviously, if an election doesn't go the way you want it to, it was rigged. Preposterous.

When I worked the polls, we did not have a photo ID requirement. We could ask for proof of residency in the district (as in address), which was principally used for directing people to the correct polling location/precinct. We were not required to "inspect signatures" or any of that, since a person has a perfect right to change the way they sign their name; the act of signing made the voter liable in case anything shady occurred. There were safeguards a-plenty, especially since each polling location had to have a mix of both major parties as representatives, ostensibly to keep an eye on each other, but really more to reassure the public.

I tried my darnedest to reassure people that, no, Ohio's vote wasn't "stolen." But you can't convince the hotheads about it.

[Walt'sBeerWench]

Originally Posted by moonlight

Why? Last I checked, this was not the Soviet Union and we are free to move around and do all sorts of stuff without ID. In fact, I can only think of a few situations where you are required to have ID - on base (dependent ID), coming into the US (US passport), or buying restricted material, alcohol and such (whatever ID you choose that proves age). However, none of those is something anyone is required to do.

I personally don't carry any ID unless I am planning on doing one of the above because I don't have to.

</libertarian rant>

On a more on topic note, I vote in Texas by absentee ballot each election. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote absentee as allowed by the state and the MSRRA because I can't show photo ID before voting?

*to the bolded* I think that is a bit extreme. I'm saying (IMHO) that everyone should have an ID. There are a lot of things you need an ID for. It only makes sense (to me) to have one. And I don't see how asking someone to have an ID in order to vote is showing intent to exclude people. It isn't like getting an ID is hard or overly expensive. The article says that certain people think that it is an attempt to exclude certain groups of people. The only people that would be excluded are those that don't have the right to vote (as in illegals or "guests").

As far as absentee voting....at some point you had to prove who you were and that you had the right to vote there.

[Esme]

Originally Posted by moonlight

Why? Last I checked, this was not the Soviet Union and we are free to move around and do all sorts of stuff without ID. In fact, I can only think of a few situations where you are required to have ID - on base (dependent ID), coming into the US (US passport), or buying restricted material, alcohol and such (whatever ID you choose that proves age). However, none of those is something anyone is required to do.

I personally don't carry any ID unless I am planning on doing one of the above because I don't have to.

</libertarian rant>

On a more on topic note, I vote in Texas by absentee ballot each election. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote absentee as allowed by the state and the MSRRA because I can't show photo ID before voting?

Coming from a country being far from a country like the Soviet Union where carrying and showing an ID is normal I find that comparison a bit harsh and even borderline offensive.
I don't even get the uproar, I never voted without having to show my ID card or passport, as I said, it's normal here. It simply is different, that doesn't make us socialist or less of a free country. It always baffles me how people pull comparisons like that because of those small things like proof of identity or health care but yet there are enough people in the US who want to be all up in your uterus and sexual business at the same time. Now THAT is a lot closer to the mentioned (no longer existing) country than having to proof your identity while voting.

To get back to topic, I don't see how it is racist or wrong or taking away any kind of freedom if you have to proof your identity when you are voting.

[MarineHusband]

Originally Posted by Esme

To get back to topic, I don't see how it is racist or wrong or taking away any kind of freedom if you have to proof your identity when you are voting.

You're correct to an extent, but there are a couple of cultural factors at work here influencing things. One is the post-slavery "Jim Crow" laws and "poll taxes" that were intentionally designed to suppress the black vote. Anything that has the appearance of that goes under extra scrutiny, and I think most places require a fee for an official ID or drivers license, which can be construed to be a poll tax if it's made a requirement for voting.

Another is the libertarian (using the word in the larger sense, rather than referring to the Libertarian Party) cultural ideal that an American should be taken at his or her word, and that they are who they say they are. Assuming duplicity rather than honesty goes against the grain.

[moonlight]

Originally Posted by MarineHusband

You're correct to an extent, but there are a couple of cultural factors at work here influencing things. One is the post-slavery "Jim Crow" laws and "poll taxes" that were intentionally designed to suppress the black vote. Anything that has the appearance of that goes under extra scrutiny, and I think most places require a fee for an official ID or drivers license, which can be construed to be a poll tax if it's made a requirement for voting.

Another is the libertarian (using the word in the larger sense, rather than referring to the Libertarian Party) cultural ideal that an American should be taken at his or her word, and that they are who they say they are. Assuming duplicity rather than honesty goes against the grain.

The fact is, any kind of government ID costs money to apply for - even if it's $10 for a state ID. And yes, there are people who have to choose between feeling their kids and paying that $10 for a state ID. Do they not have the right to vote? Obviously 250 years ago when you were required to own land in order to vote, things were different but I'd like to think we've moved on a little bit since then. Besides, where do you draw the line at cost? How can you tell a US citizen that they have to pay anything to vote? It's a very basic right and should cost nothing.

This is actually really interesting hearing people's opinions since one of the goals of the Military Spouse's Residency Relief Act was to prevent disenfranchisement of military spouses. PCS before an election but after the registration cut off period, and guess what? Military spouses weren't being allowed to vote. Kind of an eye opener when it happens to a group you belong to, huh?

And sorry - no one will ever convince me that requiring ID just to exist is a good idea. Offensive or not, our country is moving towards less and less freedom and it's only a matter of time before we end up with our freedoms as severely restricted as other countries have been in the past. But like I said, I'm a pretty rabid libertarian (little l, not big L).

[MarineHusband]

The other way to go, which isn't usually discussed, is the way of restricting the franchise to certain classes of people (akin to the old land-ownership requirement mentioned), rather than our present "warm-body" democracy. But none of those proposals have any real chance of being enacted and will remain exercises in political theory and rhetoric.

[Esme]

As I said, I get that it's different and a different understanding of Freedom in the US. But that doesn't make any country who is handling these things different a dictatorship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarineHusband]

Originally Posted by Esme

As I said, I get that it's different and a different understanding of Freedom in the US. But that doesn't make any country who is handling these things different a dictatorship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But, you have to understand, any slight risk to anyone's rights, no matter how theoretical or limited, is On The Road To Losing Our Freedoms, and must be fought to the death!

[MarisaAnne]

Originally Posted by Walt'sBeerWench

. . . And I don't see how asking someone to have an ID in order to vote is showing intent to exclude people. . . .

There is plenty of evidence which exists that can help in understanding how such restrictions can and do impact people. Check out the similar thread in Politics, where I've provided several articles with links.