"Feds OK Georgia law requiring photo ID to vote"
Naturally, the usual suspects are outraged.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 29, 2005 04:48 PM | Email ThisBoy, I'd always thought that draconian laws involved things like starving middle schoolers by taking away their free lunches, or perhaps torturing suspects with a complete disregard for human rights reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot. Now we find out that requiring that a voter carry their driver's license to the polls is now draconian.
Just out of curiousity, are there any studies about what percentage of the voting eligible population doesn't have a photo ID? My wife hasn't driven in three years but has a photo ID issued by the state of Washington so that she can do things like write checks or use a credit card. Cost her ten bucks at the DMV. I'd guess that if anyone is too poor to afford a ten dollar state ID card, there are plenty of organizations that would pony up the dough. If I knew of some legitimately deserving, down on their luck person who needed one, I'd be willing to provide the cash. It's less than I've donated to many other worthy causes.
Posted by: Calvin A on August 29, 2005 05:03 PM
Hogwash!
Look, Dems, the Repbublicans are simply putting their foot down against fraud, and you should be celebrating it. But predictably, you are against it and trying to play the race card, simply because you don't like the idea that Democrats will no more be able to come in and check who hasn't voted in four years (as it was reported in eastern WA at the statewide SOS meetings)and vote in their place. That's called CHEATING. Fuh-get about it.
Posted by: Michele on August 29, 2005 05:49 PMFolks who show up at the polls with some other photo ID could vote a provisional ballot, and a photocopy of their alternate ID would be placed in the provisional ballot envelope, for the canvassing board to compare with the photo in the voter database.
Now, if we REALLY wanted to be secure, we would go to biometrics, with scans of the voters' thumbprints being included in the voter database, and all polling places being equipped with thumb readers tied into the database. When your thumb is scanned, if it matches, you get a ballot and you get credited with voting. If your thumb doesn't match the one in the database, you get a provisional ballot, and your inked thumbprint goes on the envelope for later examination. With biometrics, nobody needs any separate ID, but a positive ID is made before you vote. But that would cost a lot of money to implement.
Posted by: Legast on August 29, 2005 05:49 PMI sure hope so.
Posted by: cc on August 29, 2005 07:19 PMSo...let's deduce *who* - in the *legal* voting public ("legal" being the key word here..), would NOT have access to Photo Identification.........
...........................
Hmmm.....still thinking....
The only people I can think of - that would not have access to photo ID...would be those who suffer from severe agoraphobia? But I'm sure they would vote absentee.....
Heck! They give out free photo ID at most fairs these days! King County Sheriffs Dept. provides free picture ID for children and those at risk.
Posted by: Deborah on August 29, 2005 09:43 PMYou left out one segment of society in your your description:
"The voter registration card should be a photo ID, and should be the only form of ID acceptable for voting. As everyone who registers to vote gets a free voter registration card, all segments of society could have one, even the most indigent."
".., and even the most indignant and liberal of Democrats would have a free voter registration card."
Power to the people
Posted by: T.J. on August 29, 2005 10:56 PM* Birth certificate
* “Georgia gun registration” (sic)
* Social Security card
So I guess he’s protecting the rights of that significant fraction of Georgians who 1) don’t have photo ID, but 2) can whip out a birth certificate, gun registration and original SSN card.
I don't think they received that much feedback. The story I heard was the local ACLU and usual suspects complained. Not like there was a public outcry.
What we need is an initiative for 2006 requiring photo ID to both register and vote at the polls. Not sure what to do about all mail balloting. It would be handily defeated if we were to bring it up for a vote. Lazy populace doesn't want to get off their a-- for anything. I have had the (futile) argument with more of my friends than I care to count who think that mail balloting is the best thing since sliced bread. Fraud arguments go nowhere. They are not politically active (both sides of the fence) and don't really see a problem, just want voting to be convenient for them.
Posted by: Calvin A on August 30, 2005 06:05 AMThe bottom line is they cannot win state wide or national elections without cheating in their current incarnation, rather than lose power they will do anything to maintain power.
These folks are anti-democratic and are enemies of a representative republic with free, open and honest elections. They care more for their own power and influence, not inalienable right of all to liberty.
Make no mistake, nothing less than our form of government and our hard won liberty is at stake.
Posted by: JCM on August 30, 2005 07:51 AMhttp://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/elections/voter_information/default.htm
-- and include:
(1) valid GA driver's license;
(2) valid ID card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal ID;
(3) valid US passport;
(4) valid employee ID card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the US government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;
(5) valid employee ID card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any employer of the elector in the ordinary course of such employer's business;
(6) valid student ID card containing a photograph of the elector from any public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the state of Georgia;
(7) valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;
(8) valid pilot's license issued by the FAA or other authorized agency of the United States;
(9) valid US military ID card;
(10) certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;
(11) valid social security card;
(12) certified naturalization documentation;
(13) or a certified copy of court records showing adoption, name, or sex change;
(14) copy of a utility bill;
(15) bank statement (will be kept confidential);
(16) government check or payment with name and address; or
(17) government document that shows the name and address of the elector.
Overall so far in WA the election reforms are a mockery of the process. As I have said before in other posts the powers that be are not serious about true election reform. Election reform will incorporate the following elements
1) Purge the voter rolls.
2) Everyone re-registers with proof of citizenship and residency
3) No permanent absentee ballots
4) No provisional ballots
5) You only vote at your poll presenting ID and getting logged into the poll book.
If you can't register on time, and get your but down to the poll to vote, you don't value your franchise enough and I don't care if it is convenient or not, voting is too important too allow the avenues of abuse we have now.
Absentee only for a person unable to get to a polling place.
That is the starting point for real election reform.
Posted by: JCM on August 30, 2005 08:46 AMWhy isn't the postage a defacto poll tax? If you are required to vote my mail then you are required to pay the postage, therefore defacto poll tax. If you are trying to use that as a way to overturn it, it doesn't matter on the amount that needs to be paid.
Posted by: fred on August 30, 2005 08:58 AMDid you notice up above? Utility bill? How does that prove you are a citizen or resident? Do PO Boxes work as proof of residency? Unbelievable!!
Posted by: swatter on August 30, 2005 09:33 AMThe way this most likely shakes out is that driver's licenses are acceptable forms of photo ID (unless you have one that is marked "not for identification"), and if you don't have one of those, you can get a free state ID, if you are registered to vote and don't have a driver's license. Basically, we would keep the same system we have now in WA, except drop the fee for registered voters.
Only then I will listen to THEIR negative, baiting and devisive tripe--excuse me--their "concerns."
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 30, 2005 10:49 AMUntil valid voting i.d.'s are tied to ONLY legal citizens, the id thing is a good boat to reform, but a leaky one at best. Atleast we are MOVING in the right direction despite our politicians' fears to offend.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 30, 2005 10:55 AMTrust me, Latino "illegals" (as you all are putting it) would never think about voting. They would be scared of being arrested at poll sites and deported. So do not couch the voter i.d. issue in terms of making sure "illegals" or undocumented immigrants cast illegal votes. I do not believe undocumented immigrant voting was a problem in Washington's last election. Instead, King County screwed the election up in many other ways, e.g. counting votes casted by felon voters. Again, undocumented immigrants were not the problem.
I support showing i.d. to cast your vote, but I also take offense when people think Latinos are the problem to the voting system.
Posted by: LatinoJack on August 30, 2005 06:00 PMIf it wasn't such a problem telling the legals from the illegals (something that you people don't seem to want to do anything to help with) it wouldn't be an issue.
Let's see, what's that insipid liberal phrase...Oh Yea!
"If you ain't part 'o the solution, you part 'o de problemo"
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 30, 2005 08:04 PMhowever, that does not diminish the effect of ALL illegals on our American society--health, school and other social services taxed to their limits--and little left for legal domestic folks who paid in to the systems for years;
in truth, (but i can't prove it here--and you won't believe me) is that a boatload of Asian illegals or Eastern European illegals or ANY illegals get the same wrath from me--it's just WRONG--HERE or in ANY country; ANY country has a right to take care of its OWN first! why take on the masses of everywhere else? that just reduces the 'available pie.'
truthfully, you can not honestly ignore our physical borders and you can not ignore a rational assumption about "crossers' profiles," but I will give your points good credence;
my response: do we have an ethnic profile of massive French-Canadian ancestry folks coming here? probably not; how about Scandanavian masses crossing at the southern American borders? it's just being honest or perhaps observant--maybe honesty is too hard to swallow;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on August 31, 2005 02:22 PM