Poll tax, schmoll tax.

I'm sorry, it is total nonsense to not require ID at the polls. Seriously. EVERYBODY has ID these days, EVERYBODY.

*****************

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...pid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID
Justices to Hear Challenge to Law

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 25, 2007; A01

The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.

The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?

The answer so far has depended greatly on whether you are a Democratic or Republican politician -- or even, some believe, judge.

"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.

His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.

For justices still hearing from the public about their role in the 2000 election -- "It's water over the deck; get over it," Justice Antonin Scalia impatiently told a questioner at a college forum this year -- the partisan implications of the issue are hard to miss.

The case has pitted Democrats against Republicans, conservative legal foundations against liberal ones, civil rights organizations against the Bush administration.

"Voter ID laws have become the most politicized" of governments' efforts to try to limit fraud and voting irregularities, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who filed a brief supporting the law's challengers. "It's in the nation's best interest for the court to resolve it."

Hasen is one of those who point out that the partisan division on voter ID laws often extends to the judiciary. Not only did the 7th Circuit's 2 to 1 vote to uphold Indiana's law break down along the lines of which party nominated the judges; so, with one exception, did the full court's decision not to reconsider the ruling. Michigan's Supreme Court justices -- who are elected in partisan races -- upheld that state's voter ID law, with the five Republicans voting to support it and the two Democrats opposing it.

Hasen does not believe that the decisions reflect a desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.

"People come in with a worldview, and judges are no different," Hasen said.

The Indiana case seems to offer a perfect example. The state's Republican-led legislature passed the law in 2005 requiring voters to have ID, even though the state had never prosecuted a case of voter impersonation.

Democrats there challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, although they have not produced a person who wanted to vote but was unable to do so because of the law.

What is undisputed is that the number of states with such laws is growing. The Supreme Court made it clear in a 1992 case involving write-in candidates in Hawaii that states have leeway in regulating the voting process. Subjecting every restriction to constitutional "strict scrutiny" standards would conflict with the states' ability to run efficient elections, the court said.

And in 2006, in a relatively short and unsigned opinion issued just weeks before the election, the court agreed that a voter-approved initiative in Arizona that required voters to show proof of citizenship could go into effect.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R) said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

The state law he and the legislature came up with requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID that has an expiration date, such as a driver's license or a passport. Nondrivers can receive an identification card from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Voters without ID may cast provisional ballots, but then must appear before their county clerk or board of elections within 10 days. There, they must show a photo ID or at least two other forms of identification, such as a certified birth certificate or naturalization papers.

Most other states that call for photo IDs are less strict, or make it easier to cast provisional ballots. Virginia, for instance, allows voters to sign sworn statements attesting to their identity. Maryland and the District of Columbia do not require voters to show a photo ID, except for first-time voters who registered by mail.

"Virtually everything you do, you have to show a photo ID," Rokita said in an interview, and the "sacred civic transaction" of voting should be no different.

The lower courts have agreed with Indiana. Posner's majority opinion said that the "benefits of voting to the individual voter are elusive" because major elections "are never decided by just one vote."

He said there is a deferential scale the court should follow in evaluating voting requirements. "The fewer people harmed by a law, the less total harm there is to balance against whatever benefits the law might confer," he wrote.

But Evans said that since the state had presented no evidence of voter fraud by impersonators, the law was not solving any problem. "Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?" Evans wrote. "I think not."

Even Posner alluded to the partisan nature of the debate. "No doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates," he wrote.

Both sides cite studies that they believe show that the law has not resulted in lower turnouts for minorities and others or, alternately, show that minorities are most likely to be affected. There are numerous media accounts and other reports of fraudulent voting, as well as a corresponding study from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud," which attempts to knock down many of them.

Brennan Center Executive Director Michael Waldman, a vigorous opponent of voter ID laws, said he fears that the partisan nature of the debate obscures "the actual fact that there are millions of Americans who don't have the kind of ID" that the Indiana law requires.

"We as a country should be finding ways to make it easier for people to vote," Waldman said.

He added that voter impersonation is the least common kind of voter fraud and that Indiana's ID law does nothing to combat what has been proven to have illegally influenced an Indiana election -- absentee balloting fraud.

Rokita responded that that is not a case for inaction: "Why should we wait until we become victims of identity theft, which is what this is?"

The combined cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, will be argued Jan. 9.

Look..., We are in the 21st Century of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS..., inwhich PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY and Responsibility are no longer considered/deemed important.

If "it" (whatever...) feels right (good) to each individual, well then, "they" should have the liberty to do "it..."

Voter ID is obviously an infringement on the beliefs of Political Correctness...

quote:

Originally posted by ELLIOTT1980:
Look..., We are in the 21st Century of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS..., inwhich PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY and Responsibility are no longer considered/deemed important.

If "it" (whatever...) feels right (good) to each individual, well then, "they" should have the liberty to do "it..."

Voter ID is obviously an infringement on the beliefs of Political Correctness...

hell.. short of a passport or a military ID, a Voter ID is the best way to prove you are a citizen. with the info on there, your picture, and your finger print it would be a snap to tell the illegal from the legal.

In Mexico there is a voter ID card... no one there objects

i swear, we Americans ***** about the stupidest things.. that which helps is is bad, and when no one helps it is bad too..

take a Mylanta pill and quit bellyaching people.. Voter ID = Good

Gee, look what I just found.

I can't believe the democrats have a problem with voter ID. If they are worried that some folks can't afford it, they could waive the fee. Sheesh. That would be $$$ very well spent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/25/politics/wash...st/main3646005.shtml

Can A Photo ID Be Required To Vote?
Dec. 25, 2007(Washingtonpost.com) This story was written by Robert Barnes.

The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.

The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?

The answer so far has depended greatly on whether you are a Democratic or Republican politician -- or even, some believe, judge.

"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.

His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.

For justices still hearing from the public about their role in the 2000 election -- "It's water over the deck; get over it," Justice Antonin Scalia impatiently told a questioner at a college forum this year -- the partisan implications of the issue are hard to miss.

The case has pitted Democrats against Republicans, conservative legal foundations against liberal ones, civil rights organizations against the Bush administration.

"Voter ID laws have become the most politicized" of governments' efforts to try to limit fraud and voting irregularities, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who filed a brief supporting the law's challengers. "It's in the nation's best interest for the court to resolve it."

Hasen is one of those who point out that the partisan division on voter ID laws often extends to the judiciary. Not only did the 7th Circuit's 2 to 1 vote to uphold Indiana's law break down along the lines of which party nominated the judges; so, with one exception, did the full court's decision not to reconsider the ruling. Michigan's Supreme Court justices -- who are elected in partisan races -- upheld that state's voter ID law, with the five Republicans voting to support it and the two Democrats opposing it.

Hasen does not believe that the decisions reflect a desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.

"People come in with a worldview, and judges are no different," Hasen said.

The Indiana case seems to offer a perfect example. The state's Republican-led legislature passed the law in 2005 requiring voters to have ID, even though the state had never prosecuted a case of voter impersonation.

Democrats there challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, although they have not produced a person who wanted to vote but was unable to do so because of the law.

What is undisputed is that the number of states with such laws is growing. The Supreme Court made it clear in a 1992 case involving write-in candidates in Hawaii that states have leeway in regulating the voting process. Subjecting every restriction to constitutional "strict scrutiny" standards would conflict with the states' ability to run efficient elections, the court said.

And in 2006, in a relatively short and unsigned opinion issued just weeks before the election, the court agreed that a voter-approved initiative in Arizona that required voters to show proof of citizenship could go into effect.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R) said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

The state law he and the legislature came up with requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID that has an expiration date, such as a driver's license or a passport. Nondrivers can receive an identification card from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Voters without ID may cast provisional ballots, but then must appear before their county clerk or board of elections within 10 days. There, they must show a photo ID or at least two other forms of identification, such as a certified birth certificate or naturalization papers.

Most other states that call for photo IDs are less strict, or make it easier to cast provisional ballots. Virginia, for instance, allows voters to sign sworn statements attesting to their identity. Maryland and the District of Columbia do not require voters to show a photo ID, except for first-time voters who registered by mail.

"Virtually everything you do, you have to show a photo ID," Rokita said in an interview, and the "sacred civic transaction" of voting should be no different.

The lower courts have agreed with Indiana. Posner's majority opinion said that the "benefits of voting to the individual voter are elusive" because major elections "are never decided by just one vote."

He said there is a deferential scale the court should follow in evaluating voting requirements. "The fewer people harmed by a law, the less total harm there is to balance against whatever benefits the law might confer," he wrote.

But Evans said that since the state had presented no evidence of voter fraud by impersonators, the law was not solving any problem. "Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?" Evans wrote. "I think not."

Even Posner alluded to the partisan nature of the debate. "No doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates," he wrote.

Both sides cite studies that they believe show that the law has not resulted in lower turnouts for minorities and others or, alternately, show that minorities are most likely to be affected. There are numerous media accounts and other reports of fraudulent voting, as well as a corresponding study from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud," which attempts to knock down many of them.

Brennan Center Executive Director Michael Waldman, a vigorous opponent of voter ID laws, said he fears that the partisan nature of the debate obscures "the actual fact that there are millions of Americans who don't have the kind of ID" that the Indiana law requires.

"We as a country should be finding ways to make it easier for people to vote," Waldman said.

He added that voter impersonation is the least common kind of voter fraud and that Indiana's ID law does nothing to combat what has been proven to have illegally influenced an Indiana election -- absentee balloting fraud.

Rokita responded that that is not a case for inaction: "Why should we wait until we become victims of identity theft, which is what this is?"

The combined cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, will be argued Jan. 9.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

In Indiana, if you "cant afford" to get a state ID, they will still give you one provided you have the qualifying documents. Even birth certificates are a fairly easy thing to obtain these days and in Indiana, you can get those free as well so there really is no excuse to not have one. It is the single biggest and effective thing to curb election and other types of fraud including illegal aliens voting due to how easy it is with the "motor voter act". ID and other document crimes are a big prblem in Indianapolis. Why they are so hard for the police to keep busting them eludes me. If you are illegal and have the cash, you can get authentic looking fake papers.
Voter ID law at least helps stop some illegal voting. Another thing to note is that regular voter fraud by illegally registered aliens who got voter registration through "motor voter" dont show up on the radar and often go un-noticed. I think thats why Democrats are so against it is because they know that there are so many illegals who have managed to register to vote and then will vote for the amnesty candidates.

Cant anyone tell me which party is not pushing this bill?

quote:

Originally posted by DIRTYLODOWN:
Cant anyone tell me which party is not pushing this bill?

The dems are TOTALLY against picture ID for voters. They liken it to a "poll tax."

COMPLETELY assinine.

Imagine if a voter ID was needed in Illinois.

Imagine if an ID was needed to register to vote in Illinois.

Imagine if they kept the cemetery gates locked on Election Day.

The reason that Democrats fear the voter ID is that city by city, county by county the number of votes compared to past years elections will be hundreds, thousands maybe even tens of thousands lower and it will not be because of voter intimidation or any silly poll tax talk but because those voters never existed.

The proof of the past corruption will damage the Democrat party and insure resentment when people find out that they were not truly represented for years and years.

quote:

Imagine if they kept the cemetery gates locked on Election Day.

you got that right

making them prove there legal to vote? thats madness. that must make them racist.

It's pretty clear that any requirement of this type puts an undue burden on registered, qualified voters who either can't afford a photo ID or have never needed to get one.

For example, anyone who lives in a major city has no real need of a driver's license, at least for day-to-day life - and most people never leave the country, so why would they have a passport? Furthermore, there are many inner-city (and out-of-city) registered voters who can't afford the expense of a photo ID - passports and driver's licenses are extremely expensive - $97 for a passport and generally at least $50 for a driver's license, not counting the cost of the driver's education courses and in-car instruction required in many states to acquire a license. There are many registered voters not likely to have any photo ID, especially with the stipulation that it be government issued with an expiration date.

And everyone knows inner-city voters and poor voters tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.

It seems to me to be a transparent attempt by the Illinois state legislature, which is Republican-controlled, to disenfranchise their opponents' voter base.


Such legislation might be acceptable if, for example, there was a federal or state-issued photo ID that a) had no application fee, and b) didn't have a particularly onerous application process (anything that requires you to go for a courthouse, for example, or acquire notarized copies of something like a birth certificate requires you generally to give up at least a few hours of work - something that the poor can ill afford to lose, and that doesn't even touch on notary's fees/courthouse fees).

quote:

Originally posted by liberal90:
It's pretty clear that any requirement of this type puts an undue burden on registered, qualified voters who either can't afford a photo ID or have never needed to get one.

For example, anyone who lives in a major city has no real need of a driver's license, at least for day-to-day life - and most people never leave the country, so why would they have a passport? Furthermore, there are many inner-city (and out-of-city) registered voters who can't afford the expense of a photo ID - passports and driver's licenses are extremely expensive - $97 for a passport and generally at least $50 for a driver's license, not counting the cost of the driver's education courses and in-car instruction required in many states to acquire a license. There are many registered voters not likely to have any photo ID, especially with the stipulation that it be government issued with an expiration date.

And everyone knows inner-city voters and poor voters tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.

It seems to me to be a transparent attempt by the Illinois state legislature, which is Republican-controlled, to disenfranchise their opponents' voter base.


Such legislation might be acceptable if, for example, there was a federal or state-issued photo ID that a) had no application fee, and b) didn't have a particularly onerous application process (anything that requires you to go for a courthouse, for example, or acquire notarized copies of something like a birth certificate requires you generally to give up at least a few hours of work - something that the poor can ill afford to lose, and that doesn't even touch on notary's fees/courthouse fees).

Funny thing about it is, You are serious. How can you protect your country from any foriegn influance if you cant protect voting? Oh wait lets give illegals drivers licenses so that problem is solved. Oh yeah, California Stated ID $20. Didnt we say in 2000 that Bush cheated, well this prevents from cheating (or is that what you want).

if some one really wanted to vote, they should take the time and get the proper id that should be required. if they don't want to, thats to bad.
one party doesn't want it because some might not vote because its not as convenient. the other wants it because it would prevent illegals from voting.

who do you think the illegals are going to vote for? the party thats going to bend over for them, or the party thats going to make them accountable for there crimes.

if your against the ID its obvious that your hoping for all those illegal votes.

quote:

Originally posted by liberal90:
It's pretty clear that any requirement of this type puts an undue burden on registered, qualified voters who either can't afford a photo ID or have never needed to get one.

For example, anyone who lives in a major city has no real need of a driver's license, at least for day-to-day life - and most people never leave the country, so why would they have a passport? Furthermore, there are many inner-city (and out-of-city) registered voters who can't afford the expense of a photo ID - passports and driver's licenses are extremely expensive - $97 for a passport and generally at least $50 for a driver's license, not counting the cost of the driver's education courses and in-car instruction required in many states to acquire a license. There are many registered voters not likely to have any photo ID, especially with the stipulation that it be government issued with an expiration date.

And everyone knows inner-city voters and poor voters tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.

It seems to me to be a transparent attempt by the Illinois state legislature, which is Republican-controlled, to disenfranchise their opponents' voter base.


Such legislation might be acceptable if, for example, there was a federal or state-issued photo ID that a) had no application fee, and b) didn't have a particularly onerous application process (anything that requires you to go for a courthouse, for example, or acquire notarized copies of something like a birth certificate requires you generally to give up at least a few hours of work - something that the poor can ill afford to lose, and that doesn't even touch on notary's fees/courthouse fees).

Answer me this then:

If people in the city dont have an ID of any sort, then how do they cash their checks or draw money from the bank? Almost anything you do these days requires some form of ID especially if it involves money.

quote:

Originally posted by wupan:
if some one really wanted to vote, they should take the time and get the proper id that should be required. if they don't want to, thats to bad.

Right on. In fact, I would say that requiring voter ID, even if it creates a hardship for a few, is an extraordinarily small price to pay to ensure that elections are truly fair.

Just think, for every fraudulent vote another legal vote by a law abiding citizen is canceled out. . . now THATS even MORE unfair, and that should be a bigger concern to polticians.

This is one of those issues that should be about America first, not politics. Sigh.

quote:

Originally posted by liberal90:
It's pretty clear that any requirement of this type puts an undue burden on registered, qualified voters who either can't afford a photo ID or have never needed to get one.

For example, anyone who lives in a major city has no real need of a driver's license, at least for day-to-day life - and most people never leave the country, so why would they have a passport? Furthermore, there are many inner-city (and out-of-city) registered voters who can't afford the expense of a photo ID - passports and driver's licenses are extremely expensive - $97 for a passport and generally at least $50 for a driver's license, not counting the cost of the driver's education courses and in-car instruction required in many states to acquire a license. There are many registered voters not likely to have any photo ID, especially with the stipulation that it be government issued with an expiration date.

And everyone knows inner-city voters and poor voters tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic party.

It seems to me to be a transparent attempt by the Illinois state legislature, which is Republican-controlled, to disenfranchise their opponents' voter base.


Such legislation might be acceptable if, for example, there was a federal or state-issued photo ID that a) had no application fee, and b) didn't have a particularly onerous application process (anything that requires you to go for a courthouse, for example, or acquire notarized copies of something like a birth certificate requires you generally to give up at least a few hours of work - something that the poor can ill afford to lose, and that doesn't even touch on notary's fees/courthouse fees).

Are you farking serious? If you throw out all of those "onerous" requirements, it makes the ID all but worthless in proving eligibility to vote. As others have stated, it's almost impossible to do anything that involves financial transactions without a photo ID. I don't see how requiring some proof of identity is a burden to voting. And even if it does mean that you have to go down to the court house and wait in line to get a photo ID in order to vote, that's a small sacrifice compared to what others have done for the right to vote.

it is scary that liberal90 actually belives what he has posted and thats truly scary. Its Indiana, not Illinois at the matter at SCOTUS.
Like I have stated before, an ID will cost nothing if you cant afford it. the license branches even stay open on elction day to make sure everyone who wants an ID can get one. Birth certificates can also be free if you cant afford it so thetre is no reason that a person who wants to vote cant get a proper ID.
The problem of illegal aliens voting is something the media has taken great pains to ignore. I think it is a larger problem than we can imagine and that is why democrats are so opposed to IDs at the polling place.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom:

quote:

Originally posted by wupan:
if some one really wanted to vote, they should take the time and get the proper id that should be required. if they don't want to, thats to bad.

Right on. In fact, I would say that requiring voter ID, even if it creates a hardship for a few, is an extraordinarily small price to pay to ensure that elections are truly fair.

Just think, for every fraudulent vote another legal vote by a law abiding citizen is canceled out. . . now THATS even MORE unfair, and that should be a bigger concern to politicians.

This is one of those issues that should be about America first, not politics. Sigh.

Except this single measure wouldn't really do very much to ensure that election are really fair