Redstate

of voter fraud committed by showing a forged or invalid non-photo id?

I did a Google search for examples of Democratic voter fraud and the instances that came up were the 2004 elections in Washington State, Milwaukee and East St. Louis.

In the Washington  State election it seems the main issues revolved around the validation of provisional ballots, the mailing of absentee ballots, ineligible people voting, and more ballots being cast than the number of people who were suppose to have voted.

In the Milwaukee election the main issues revolve around people supposedly voting twice, handling of absentee ballots, unprocessed voter registration cards, and data entry errors.

In the East St. Louis election the issues seem to be multiple votes from the same address and an inordinate number of absentee ballots.

In none of these instances would a person be stopped from casting a fraudulent vote if they had shown a photo ID instead of an electric bill, a bank statement, or a check from the Government.

Can you point to an example of actual voter fraud, which would have been stopped if a person had shown a photo ID instead of an electric bill, a bank statement, or a check from the Government?

Also, the article you link to claims that a person  who is not able to produce a valid picture ID will not be allowed to vote at all.  Shouldn't they at least be allowed to cast a provisional ballot?

In my opinion, there are more reasons not to use any kind of biometric identification for voting than there are to use them.  Right now there should be more than one form of ID, and possibly three, required before a person can vote.  A photo ID and a secondary ID showing the same address with the same name are, right now, the best guarantees we have against fraudulent voting.

Using a single, biometric ID like a photograph, or a fingerprint, or even a retina scan, is fraught with problems, the most important of which is that once you steal a "unique" ID it cannot be unstolen.  But there are larger problems than simply saying that an ID can be stolen.  It goes to the question of how much trouble it is to duplicate a person's identity for the purposes of vote fraud.

My feeling is that the best guard we have against fraud is to require at least two forms of ID -- from different sources!  One should be photographic, but if it conflicts with the other, the voter should not be allowed to vote.  

Let's also say something in favor of the integrity of the voter:  I take at least three forms of ID with me wherever I go, in my wallet:  A driver's license, a major credit card, and my social-security card.  Sometimes I supplement that with a bill.  

I am not in favor of most of the biometric IDs I have seen so far.  Not for society-wide applications such as voting, at least.

At least in this:  It allows people to have both a State ID card AND a Driver's License.

Not everyone can get both.  But everyone should have at least one.  They are both officially recognized forms of identification.  Most banks require that and at least one other form of ID before opening a bank account.  Or voting system should require no less.  

Should not be allowed to vote, even provisionally.  If that is their only form of ID, then you could call that a provisional ballot.

I would like to know why it is your position.

What instances of voting fraud have occured that would have not occured had a picture ID been required instead of a non-picture ID?

Of me telling you how to beat the system.

Arguments are bogus. I work for a big city welfare dept. Every state has a photo ID available to it's citizens. No exceptions. I wrote my county's policy on this and did a lot or research. Every state has this option. Do NOT believe it when someone says that it is "inconvenient" for people to get an ID. Tough. Deal with it.

Every state that I've seen uses other mechanisms in the production of their ID cards that go beyond the photographic identification of the holder to allow people to ascertain that the ID is legitimate.  Meaning that even a non-photographic ID could be legitimate.  But adding a photograph requirement serves as further documentation.  

No system is perfect. In cases such as this, if we are to avoid fraud, the only way to do it is to have more checks on the voter's identity, not less, and not from a single source.

The argument to pass this legislation seems to rest on two claims:

1. Voter fraud is being committed by people who show a non-photo ID when they vote.
   
2. The occurance of the above fraud will stop or be dramatically reduced if a photo ID is required instead of a non-photo ID.

I haven't been able to find any instances of voter fraud that would support those two claims.

So my question is what problem is this proposed law correcting?

But the basic idea of making the voting process more secure should surely appeal to everyone, no?  Why would anyone think that having better voter identification was a bad thing?

In Georgia a person can obtain a driver's license by showing the same forms of ID required to vote.

At some point in the process a person has to obtain their first picture ID.  I don't see how you are making the voting process more secure by not accepting the same forms of ID required to obtain a picture ID.

I'm saying that you ALSO have to get the picture ID.  

It seems pretty simple to me.  You want to make it easier to for people to identify themselves when they vote.  I want to make it harder.  It's not terribly difficult to grasp.

I am asking why GA should change its current law.  

A photo ID requirement adds an extra step to the voting process that does not currently exist in GA.

I don't believe it is unreasonable to ask why a law should be enacted that would make it more difficult for some people to vote.  

It isn't difficult to obtain a photo ID, but some people don't actually have one.  My Grandmother, thank the Lord, doesn't have a driver's license, but she legally votes in every election.  

To ask that question, I just think they should do it.  If you don't like it, get your grandmother and protest.

over preventing fraud?

Convenience is no virtue when it allows and encourages the debasement of the democratic process. Every fraudulent vote for Kerry, for example, negates an honest vote for Bush, for example.

Requiring photo identification is presumed to discourage the passing of bad checks, underaged drinking, and the unauthorized entry into official buildings. And it's not an onerous requirement.

Yet many legislators scream at this modest requirement

John Fund in Opinionjournal.com, two years ago:

(Attempts) to impose identification requirements here run into furious objections that they would discriminate against poor and minority voters. In New Mexico, state Rep. Max Coll, a Democrat, justified blocking a photo ID bill by calling it an effort "to suppress the vote of poorly educated people who don't understand exactly what they need to bring as ID or anything like that."

That is sheer demagoguery. Almost everyone needs a photo ID to survive in today's society. You can't cash a check or open a video-rental account without a driver's license or the equivalent, and all states provide a low-cost photo identification cards for nondrivers. Under last year's federal election reform, you don't even need one of these. Acceptable proof of identity can include a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck or any government document showing your name and address. Someone who lacks any of those things is a rare specimen indeed in 21st century America.

More recently, Democratic legislators in the Indiana House walked out to protest the Republican majority's agenda, which included a photo identification measure. In doing so, they derailed more than 100 pieces of legislation,

The voting bill, at least, has been revived on the Senate side, and Governor Daniels will surely sign it.

To state specifically what one can infer from above: Recent history tells us it's overwhelmingly Democrats that benefit from voter fraud, and it's overwhelmingly Democrats who oppose even modest reforms. The reason is political self-interest, hiding behind high-minded rhetoric.

has yet said how voter fraud will be prevented if there is a photo ID only requirement.

The article you link to is actually arguing that there should be a requirement to show a photo or a non-photo ID before a person votes.

I am not supporting the position that a person shouldn't have to show an ID when they vote.  I am arguing that a person shouldn't have to show a photo ID when they vote.

Currently a person who wants to vote in GA has to show an ID.  Acceptable froms of ID include a utility bill, a Government check and a bank statement.  These forms of ID are also accpetable to obtain a GA drivers license.

Under this proposed GA law only people who show a photo ID will be allowed to vote.  No matter how much public education is done regarding this proposed law there will be legitimate voters who are not allowed to cast a normal vote or complete a provisional ballot as a result.  

I haven't been able to find out in what instances a photo ID will prevent fraud while a non-photo ID will allow it to happen.  If anyone can explain that to me I would appreciate it.

I've read a lot of your posts and for some reason, I'm sorry to say, you strike me as someone being deliberately obtuse to wind people up. Anyway, strangely enough, you cannot buy a drink, drive a car, open a bank account, board a plane, travel out of or into the country, or join a video club without a recognized photo ID.

If a photo ID is so useless when it comes to establishing identity, why are you not arguing against requiring a photo ID for these activities? Would you try to cash a cheque with a utility bill as your ID?

I can, with not much of an effort print up almost exact duplicates of a utility bill or bank statement. When there is a long line of people at the polls, how many poll workers do you believe will take the time to authenticate the document ... even visually?

Requiring a state recognized photo ID just makes it a lot harder for fraud to take place. It allows for easier cross-checking with a state database of voters (thus catching out Criminal/Feline/Canine/Equine/Bovine/Non/Deceased/Ephemereal Americans; all of whom are not allowed to vote) and allows us more confidence of the results on election night.  

Think of it this way if it will make you happier; every fake vote for a Republican cancels out a valid vote for a Democrat. Fake Republican votes also undermines the hard work of ACORN and other Leftist organizations when they register fake voters and somehow get them to vote absentee.

Photo ID is the TSA standard for verifying passenger ID's so if the purpose of the photo ID is to prevent acts of terrorism at polling places then perhaps I could agree.  But it would appear there is another motive and purpose for requiring such ID's, no.

Follow the money.  Who potentialy gains from placing restrictions on who votes and who loses?

more in terms who potentially loses when voter fraud is made more difficult. The Party of Clinton or the Party of Lincoln?

But it would appear there is another motive and purpose for requiring such ID's, no.

Yeah ... preventing voter fraud. Do you have an objection to preventing voter fraud?

By the way, since we both agree that photo IDs are useful for "verifying" identity, what is your objection to using them to verify identity at the polling place?

I am not trying to wind people up.  I am trying to figure out why this is a good law.

This proposed law would not let people vote unless they have a photo ID.  It would not allow them to cast a provisional ballot.

The justification for this law seems to be that those who show a non photo ID are commiting voter fraud which they would not be able to commit if they had to show a photo ID.  No one has been able to point to a case of an actual instance of voter fraud which would be prohibited from happening if a person  shows a photo ID instead of a non-photo ID.

As I said before, no matter how much public education is done there will be legitimate voters who are turned away from the polls.  I don't think  there is a large number of voters affected by this but before GA passes a law that will turn these voters away GA should be able to show what greater good is being gained by passing this law.

I haven't seen what greater good comes from this, and the only arguments I have heard on Redstate have to do with the fact that a photo ID is not difficult to obtain.  I concede that point.  Photo ID's are not difficult to obtain.  

It is my guess that most people here on Redstate, including me, have a desire to see both Republican and Democratic voter fraud never be a factor in an election.

Having said that, I don't understand why this GA will prevent any voter fraud.

Just because there hasn't been an instance proven yet, of someone showing misinformation at the polls, that doesn't change how easy it is to do it.  The forms of non-photo ID required currently are much too easy to forge.  And really why is it such a big deal to make the system a little more uniform.  If every one has to show a photo-ID, which are easy to obtain, then there wouldn't be any confusion because everyone will know that, "Hey, I need my drivers license or my state non-drivers ID to vote."  The best reason I see for enacting this law is to stop fraud from happening in the future. Just because it hasn't been proven to happen yet doesn't mean that it can't happen. Why not stop it before it does?

If this law passes a person who does not have a photo ID will not be allowed to vote in GA.

How many voters should not be allowed to vote in order to fix something that isn't broken?

You're asking for a documented case where a ineligible voter used fake non-photo documents to vote, is that it?

Aren't you forgetting that there is no way to identify a vote once it is in the ballot box? If an ineligible voter successfully fools poll station workers, chances are he has gotten away with it for good.

How about the many different precincts in every single election year in which there are more votes than registered voters? How about the substantial number of people who arrive at their poll stations only to be told that they have already voted?

Give me a copy of a utility bill, a phone book, a database of voters (public information), a computer, printer and any rudimentary graphics program and I would be able to vote all over Georgia (and many other states) if I so wish.

Requiring state/federal issued (recognized and easily validatable) photo ID is not foolproof. But getting a recognized photo ID is not in any way difficult (and is free) for those eligible and it does place one more hurdle in the path of ACORN and other voter fraud organizations/individuals.

And even if, as you are claiming, voter fraud facilitated with faked papers has never happened before, just because no-one has as yet broken into your house doesn't mean you should leave the front door open at night.

Frankly, I don't want my vote cancelled/diluted by a fake/illegal vote. You may not think that's a valid concern, but that's you. I believe the vast majority of Americans feel the same way as I do.

PS: If the sponsors of the bill added a provision that money would be spent buying ads in the papers and on TV to advise ciizens of this new change in law and reminding them to get an ID from the DMV, Post office, etc. would you still disapprove?

PPS: Currently, people who do not have any of the eighteen forms of ID accepted in the current GA election law are not allowed to vote. Why does that not bother you? Isn't 18 too restrictive? Why not 37? Why not include business cards and/or high school sweat shirt as accepted forms of ID?

It would lend credence to this bill if there was  documention that non-photo ID's are actually a problem.  

To affect an election by forging electric bills you would have to recruit very many people to actually show up at the polls with forged documents.  The logistics of this make its occurance extremely unlikely.

Wouldn't addressing the voting problems that actually do have documentation be a better way to improve the voting process and ensure that your vote isn't being cancelled out?

To answer your questions:

I can't think of any amendment to this bill that would convince me to support it.

If you can't produce any of the 18 forms of acceptable identification you probably are not eligible to vote in the first place.

I don't get you at all. Are you honestly making the case that voter fraud due to impostors has never ever happened? How do you explain the incredibly numerous election precincts that report more votes than registered voters in every single election year? Or the people who go to the polls only to be told that they have voted?

I don't see how you can agree on the one hand that, yes, photo IDs are useful (even essential) for verifying identity in every other avenue of modern life (air travel, banking, driving, video rentals, etc.) but are strangely thoroughly useless for verifying one's identity at the polls.

Do you honestly believe a utility bill or business card should be acceptable as ID for picking up a child from daycare?

To affect an election by forging electric bills you would have to recruit very many people to actually show up at the polls with forged documents.  The logistics of this make its occurance extremely unlikely.

ACORN and other Leftist organizations have routinely managed to get plenty of fake voters to vote on election day. Note also that photo ID requirements make the logistics a LOT MORE difficult.

If you can't produce any of the 18 forms of acceptable identification you probably are not eligible to vote in the first place.

So 18 is the magic number? When the law establishing the 18 forms of "identification" was enacted, did it not prevent those who had none of them from voting? What if the number of types of identification had been reduced to 17? Would that have been okay? Some people would be prevented from voting by that, right? What about 15, 12 or 10?

Getting a photo ID does not involve travelling across distant lands, rescuing a princess, finding a magic sword and slaying a dragon-riding evil wizard. You have even admitted that getting a photo ID is not in any way difficult. It's not any more difficult than getting yourself registered to vote. Or are you also opposed to there being a requirement of being registered before one can vote? After all, that also prevents some people from voting, doesn't it?

So what is your idea of a common-sense policy to combat voter fraud? Do you have anything concrete in mind? I'll give you one of mine as an example of what I'm asking for; each type of ballot should be visually distinguishable, i.e. blue borders for ballots cast at the pools, red borders for absentee ballots, green borders for military overseas ballots, orange and black borders for provisional ballots, etc.

All ballots should be uniquely numbered such that the computer can tell whether or not they are genuine. I would also support allowing those who forgot their photo IDs at home to cast provisional ballots at the polls which would only be counted when they return within the following twenty four hours with valid photo IDs.